HENRIETTA E. CHISHOLM, A SINGLE WOMAN,
v.
COCONUT GROVE EXCHANGE BANK AND K. W. CHISHOLM
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.
Henrietta E. Chisholm sought to enjoin a bank from selling her separate property (98 shares of stock) pledged as collateral for a promissory note. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's dismissal of her complaint, holding that by endorsing the note, she ratified the pledge of her separate property for her husband's debt.
The court held that when the wife endorsed the note, she ratified in writing the pledge of her separate property as collateral for the debt her husband assumed by endorsing the note. Under Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution, the wife's separate property so pledged became liable for her husband's debt.
“When K. W. Chisholm endorsed the note he became liable to the bank for the payment of it and he also thereby in writing ratified and approved the pledge of securities as collateral for the payment of the note and when Mrs. Chisholm endorsed the note she thereby, in writing ratified the pledge of securities for payment of the note.”
Establishes that the husband's endorsement and the wife's subsequent endorsement constituted written ratification of the pledge of the wife's separate property.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Everard Corporation executed a $6,000 promissory note to Coconut Grove Exchange Bank on May 10, 1938, secured by collateral including 98 shares of…
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 Pledge Of Collateral cases and more on FLexlaw
On petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 27 we review order of chancellor dismissing bill of complaint as to the defendant .bank. It appears that the petitioner has also taken appeal from the same order because of the uncertainty as to whether or not the order is a final decree. In effect, it is a final decree; but, technically, it is an interlocutory order because the cause remains undisposed of on the record as to the other defendants. We shall dismiss the appeal and dispose of the cause under Rule 27.
The record shows that on May 10, 1938, The Everard Corporation', a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida, was indebted to the Coconut Grove Exchange Bank in the sum of $6,000.00 and on that date made and executed to the bank its promissory note in the sum of $6,000.00 payable on demand, which note was secured by collateral security attached to the note.
K. W. Chisholm was president of the Everard Corporation. Henrietta E. Chisholm was vice-president and one Durden was secretary-treasurer of that corporation. K. W. Chisholm endorsed the note and thereby became liable to the payee for the payment of the note. After his endorsement the note was endorsed by Henrietta E. Chisholm.
Amongst the securities pledged to secure the payment of the note and attached to and made a part of the note were 98 shares of stock of the Everard Corporation held and owned by Henrietta E. Chisholm and which shares of stock had been assigned in blank by Henrietta E. Chisholm.
The answer alleges that 98 shares of stock owned by Henrietta E. Chisholm constituted all but two of the shares of stock of that corporation.
Sometime after the note was made, executed and endorsed and delivered to the bank, the bank gave notice, as required by statute, that it would on a day certain sell and *772dispose of the securities pledged with the note and apply the proceeds on payment of the note. Mrs. Chisholm filed her suit to enjoin the sale of the securities by the bank and in her bill of complaint she alleged, in effect, that the securities involved here constituted her separate property and that the bank was without authority to sell and dispose of such securities to satisfy the note.
When K. W. Chisholm endorsed the note he became liable to the bank for the payment of it and he also thereby in writing ratified and approved the pledge of securities as collateral for the payment of the note and when Mrs. Chisholm endorsed the note she thereby, in writing ratified the pledge of securities for payment of the note. The result was that she thereby ratified and endorsed the pledging of securities which constituted her separate property for the debt and obligation which her husband assumed by endorsing the note. See Sec. 5866 (3947), Sec. 5868 (3949) C. G. L.
Under this state of facts, the wife’s separate property so pledged became liable for the debt of her husband under the provisions of Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution.
This, in our opinion, is a stronger case than that which was presented in Springfield Co. v. Ely, 44 Fla. 319, 32 Sou. 892, and the opinion and judgment in that case is sufficient authority for sustaining and affirming the order of the chancellor involved here.
It, therefore, follows that the writ of certiorari is denied.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., dissents.
Justice Brown 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
-
Evin R. Welch & Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 138 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…reviewable by appeal. The Court held the “order or decree” of dismissal to be interlocutory because it did not dispose of the whole matter in controversy between the parties. - In another equity case, Chisholm v. Coconut Grove Exchange Bank, 1940, 144 Fla. 770, 198 So. 703, the question again was whether the proper appellate remedy was appeal or certiorari. The suit had been filed against a bank and another to enjoin a sale of pledged securities. The lower court dismissed the complaint as to the bank and…
-
Kovens v. Bluestone, 145 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1962)…one by a plain endorsement upon a promissory note.” Petitioner argues that this decision is in direct conflict with the decisions of this Court in Springfield Co. v. Ely, 1902, 44 Fla. 319, 32 So. 892; Chisholm v. Coconut Grove Exchange Bank, 1940, 144 Fla. 770, 198 So. 703; and Continental Can Co., Inc. v. Lee Co., Inc., Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 783. Petitioner also contends that this Court’s decision in Jette v. Harbison, 1947, 158 Fla. 418, 28 So. 2d 858, relied upon by the district court of appeal in the d…1 / 2
-
Waechter v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 181 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…for her husband’s debts. The Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari (Kovens v. Bluestone, 145 So. 2d 473 [Fla.1962]), and distinguished the facts in that case from those in Springfield Co. v. Ely, supra, and Chisholm v. Coconut Grove Exchange Bank, 144 Fla. 770, 198 So. 703 (1940), in which it was held that the separate personal property of the wife specifically designated in the written instrument is liable for the specific debts of the husband, saying: “Thus, in both Chisholm and Springfield Co., supra,…
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
- The Springfield Co. v. Ely, 44 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1902)