NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION
v.
HONORABLE DAVID SHOLTZ, SUCCESSOR TO HONORABLE DOYLE E. CARLTON, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF FRANK M. TYLER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
National Surety Corporation challenged a judgment requiring it and its principal, Orris Nobles (successor Tax Collector), to pay Frank M. Tyler commissions earned by Tyler while serving as Tax Collector of St. Lucie County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a successor public official who receives funds under color of office must account for and pay over moneys belonging to his predecessor.
A public officer who receives moneys under color of his office has a duty imposed by law to account for and pay over those moneys, regardless of whether he was actually authorized to collect them. A successor who receives funds earned by his predecessor is subject to judgment for payment to the predecessor, and the official's bond covers such liability.
“Where a public officer assumes to collect and does collect sums of money under color of his office, it is immaterial whether he was in fact authorized to collect the money or not. He is under a duty imposed upon him by law to account for and pay over moneys collected by him colore officii”
Establishes the core principle that color of office, not actual authorization, creates the duty to account for and pay over public funds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank M. Tyler served as Tax Collector of St. Lucie County and earned statutory five percent commissions on tax sales for the years 1929-1932 totaling…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The law of this case has been definitely and finally settled in the earlier decisions of this Court which hold that inasmuch as Frank M. Tyler, former Tax Collector of St. Lucie County was succeeded in office by Orris Nobles, the incumbent Tax Collector, and retired from his office without having received his maximum compensation'as Tax Collector as allowed him by Section 970 C. G. L., as amended by Chapter 15798, Acts of 1931, and that inasmuch as the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County had collected and paid over to Nobles, Tyler’s successor virtute officii, the sum of $1,336.49, which represented the statutory five per cent, commissions on tax sales that had been earned by Tyler while in office for making up delinquent lists and conducting the tax sales for the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, and therefore Nobles was in law deemed to have received the sum paid over to him, for' *112the use and benefit of his predecessor, Tyler, and was subject to judgment for that sum in Tyler’s behalf in the suit brought against him to enforce such payment. See: Lee v. Smith, 111 Fla. 91, 149 Sou. Rep. 67; Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. Rep. 848; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 Sou. Rep. 283.
The law is clear that Orris Nobles, as Tyler’s successor in office, received the commissions in question from the Clerk , of the Circuit Court by virtue and under color of his office as Tax Collector of St. Lucie County. It is also clear that Nobles was under a duty as such Tax Collector to faithfully account for and pay the same over to Tyler upon demand, because such moneys had come into Nobles’ possession or custody by virtue of his office and in no other capacity.
Where a public officer assumes to collect and does collect sums of money under color of his office, it is immaterial whether he was in fact authorized to collect the money or not. He is under a duty imposed upon him by law to account for and pay over moneys collected by him colore officii and if he fails so to do, judgment on his official bond may be entered in an appropriate proceeding, when it is made to appear that the bond of the officer bound him to “faithfully account for and pay over all moneys that may come into his possession by virtue of his office.” Walling v. Carlton, 109 Fla. 97, 147 Sou. Rep. 236; 22 R. C. L., Section 191.
This writ' of error is from a judgment rendered against Nobles and his bondsman, National Surety Company, as the final step toward enforcing the collection we have heretofore held Tyler was entitled to make from Nobles on account of the money the latter has received belonging in law to Tyler under the decisions of this Court.
*113While the writ of error is by no means frivolous as is contended, we see no good reason for further prolonging this litigation by retaining the case on our docket when it so clearly appears that the judgment rendered must inevitably be affirmed when the case is finally reached in due course. City of South. Miami v. DuBoise Const. Co., 115 Fla. 619, 155 Sou. Rep. 795; Treat v. State, ex rel. Mitton, 121 Fla. 509, 163 Sou. Rep. 883; Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554, 158 Sou. Rep. 123. The motion to dismiss as frivolous is accordingly denied but the judgment affirmed on authority of the cases last cited.
Affirmed on motion to dismiss as frivolous.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolf v. Cleveland Elec. Co., 58 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1952)…, 37 So. 2d 364, 10 A.L.R.2d 1072. Even if the order dated December 11, 1951, above quoted could be considered as the final judgment in this case, it would be necessary that we affirm the same under the authority of National Surety Corp. v. Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110, 166 So. 213; Treat v. State ex rel. Mitton, 121 Fla. 509, 163 So. 883; Gill v. Smith, 119 Fla. 293, 161 So. 282. The appeal is quashed. SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN and HOBSON, JJ., concur.…
-
City of Auburndale v. Nunn, 125 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1936)…the officer to not disregard his duty to account to the proper recipient or depository provided by law, for any moneys or funds known by him to belong to the City of Auburndale. National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, Governor, for the use of Tyler, 123 Fla. 110, 166 Sou. Rep. 213; Walling v. Carlton, 109 Fla. 97, 147 Sou. Rep. 236. The plaintiff’s declaration does not wholly fail to state a' cause of action for breach of the bond sued upon, therefore the ruling sustaining the demurrer to it should be reve…
-
Lawrence Rogers (Intervenor below) v. Bandy, 132 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1938)…entitled to his commission upon redemption or sale. Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. 848; Gay, Clerk, v. State, ex rel. McKenney, 115 Fla. 602, 155 Sou. 845; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 Sou. 283; National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110, 166 Sou. 213. “It would be necessary to substitute the word ‘unless’ for ‘until’ to put the construction on that Chapter that if it was not paid at the time of sale, he would not be entitled to his earned commission for services already performed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Treat v. State, 121 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1935)
- Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1934)
- Walling v. Doyle E. Carlton, 109 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1933)
- Tyler v. Elwyn Thomas, 114 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1934)
- Lee v. Smith, 111 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1933)
- Tyler v. Orris Nobles, 117 Fla. 328 (Fla. 1934)
- Dobkin v. Am. Auto. Ins. Assn., 115 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1934)