AIRLIFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND WILLIAM T. RAYMOND, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM A. CARR, APPELLEE
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.
This case concerns a corporation's refusal to transfer stock sold under a court-ordered foreclosure. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order compelling the transfer, holding that the court had the authority to enforce its decrees and that the corporation failed to show a legal reason to prevent the transfer.
Yes, the court had the authority to issue the rule nisi to enforce its decree. No, the corporation did not demonstrate a legal cause to prevent the stock transfer.
“It is contended that the court was without authority to issue the rule. This position cannot be maintained in view of the right of the court to enforce its decrees.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for affirming its authority to compel the stock transfer.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA portion of stock in Airlift International, Inc. was sold at a foreclosure sale. The purchaser sought to have the stock transferred to their name on …
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.
A portion of stock which had been issued by the appellant-corporation was sold pursuant to a final decree which foreclosed a mortgage on the stock. When the appellant-corporation refused to transfer the stock to the purchaser, the chancellor issued a rule nisi directed to the corporation and ordered the stock transferred on the books of the corporation.
It is contended that the court was without authority to issue the rule. This position cannot be maintained in view of the right of the court to enforce its decrees. See Ryan’s Furniture Exchange v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109, 162 So. 483 (1935). We further hold that the corporation did not show a legal cause which would indicate why the stock should not be transferred pursuant to the sale.
Appellee has cross-assigned error upon the denial of attorneys’ fees to the purchaser. No error has been demonstrated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)…rood sow should have been confined to her value at the time she was alleged to have been stolen and should have been based on market value unless shown to have had an intrinsic or peculiar value for stock purposes. In Todd v. State (Fla.App. 1966), 187 So. 2d 908, the District Court held that evidence as to the cost of the alleged stolen property (radio and television sets) did not establish its market value at the time of the theft. The state had presented evidence that the property had cost $135 when acqui…
-
Rodriquez v. State, 443 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…tablished as an essential element of the crime of grand larceny.”) See also Butler v. State, 354 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Johnson v. State, 353 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Spencer v. State, 217 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Todd v. State, 187 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The value or nature of the property stolen is such a distinct and separate element of grand larceny (grand theft) that if that element is alleged as being property of the peculiar nature recognized by statute to always be the sub…
-
Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ssion exceeded $100. In this regard, it is the law of Florida that a necessary element of proof to establish a charge such as in the instant case is the taking of property valued at $100 or more at the time of the theft. Todd v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 908, 909; Lambert v. State, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 68, 69. At the trial of the defendant herein, an invoice was introduced into evidence which recited that the original cost of one of the televisions was $152.95. It is a matter of record that the tel…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ryan's Furniture Exch., Inc. v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1935)