ANNIE L. HOLLEY, ET AL.,
v.
MARTIN L. SHAW, ET AL., AS ASSIGNEES OF AND IN THE NAME OF SHAW'S INCORPORATED
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 involves a petition for writ of scire facias seeking execution on a deficiency decree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, rejecting claims that an assignment of judgment was fraudulent and void, finding the record amply supported the trial court's decision to allow the assignees of a dissolved corporation to proceed in its name.
The Court held that the assignment of judgment was admissible and the judgment should be affirmed. The record amply supported the Circuit Court's decision to allow the assignees to proceed in the corporation's name and to execute the deficiency decree.
“The principal contention made was that a certain assignment of judgment, the original of which has been certified to this Court, was fraudulent and void.”
Identifies the central legal dispute regarding the validity of the assignment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA petition for writ of scire facias was filed seeking execution on a deficiency decree dated December 5, 1928, and recorded on February 4, 1929, in th…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignment Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case two questions are presented for our consideration which are posed by the plaintiffs in error as follows:
“1. Is an instrument of assignment receivable in evidence, which purports to be from a Florida corporation, wholly in default under Chapter 14677, Laws of Florida, Acts 1931, and dissolved for such default, alleged executed before default, but the physical condition of which shows material alterations, under highly suspicious circumstances, and the execution of which prior to such default is denied by the answer, and which alterations and suspicious circumstances are wholly unexplained by the party offering same?
“2. Ought a Court of Florida to entertain and permit *446to be maintained, contrary to Chapter 14677, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, as amended, an action or proceeding initiated in such court, in the name of a Florida corporation wholly in default, and dissolved for such default, under said law, which action necessarily must be brought in such corporation’s name?”
A petition for writ of scire facias was filed in the court below. The writ was issued.
Joint and several answers were filed. An examiner was appointed to take testimony. Later an order was made substituting a new examiner for the one first appointed.
Final judgment was entered on evidence taken which, inter alia, ordered.
“It Is Thereupon Ordered and Adjudged that Martin L. Shaw and H. O. Shaw, as assignees of and in the name of Shaw’s, Incorporated, a corporation, the petitioners herein, have execution for the deficiency decree mentioned in the writ heretofore issued herein, said decree being dated December 5th, 1928, and recorded on February 4th, 1929, in Chancery Order Book 8, page 48, records of the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida, and being in the principal sum of $1605.87; let execution issue, according to the force, form and effect of the deficiency decree aforesaid.”
Costs were taxed against plaintiff in error.
The principal contention made was that a certain assignment of judgment, the original of which has been certified to this Court, was fraudulent and void. The assignment, the other original exhibits and transcript of the record have been examined. The record amply supports the judgment of the Circuit Court. Therefore, the judgment should be, and is affirmed. ,
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
*447Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Ci-iapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. IN Salem v. Concrete Equip., Inc., 394 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…t to the cause of action, see, e. g., Jones v. Bradley, 366 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (where subrogor’s action was barred by res judicata, subrogee’s action was similarly barred), not an impediment personal to the subrogor. Cf. Holley v. Shaw, 143 Fla. 445, 196 So. 863 (Fla.1940) (prior assignee of subsequently dissolved corporation could maintain action). We conclude, therefore, that an insurer which has paid an insured’s loss is a subrogee of the insured’s cause of action against a tort-feasor; tha…