HELEN M. BEAN AND GEORGE W. BEAN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CLEARWATER, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree in a creditor's bill filed by First National Bank of Clearwater against appellants Helen and George Bean to cancel conveyances allegedly made in fraud of creditors. The court upheld the lower court's finding that ample substantial evidence supported the decree canceling the fraudulent transfers.
The decree canceling the conveyances as fraudulent transfers should be affirmed. The record contained ample substantial evidence to sustain the final decree, and the creditor's bill was a proper remedy to challenge the fraudulent conveyances.
“It is therefore, considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, The First National Bank of Clearwater, a corporation, do have and recover out of the lands of the defendant G. W. Bean herein so attached as aforesaid, the sum of $4131.76 as its damages by it sustained for Principal, Interest and Attorneys' fees, together with the further sum of $13.30 as its costs in and about this suit expended, for which let execution issue specially against the lands of the defendant herein so attached as aforesaid”
The underlying judgment in the attachment suit that formed the basis for the creditor's bill
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst National Bank of Clearwater obtained a judgment against George W. Bean, a non-resident defendant, in an attachment suit for $4,131.76 plus costs…
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.
— Appellee was complainant in the court below, filing a creditor’s bill against the appellants seeking to cancel certain conveyances made by the appellants as it was alleged in the bill of complaint, in fraud of creditors. Prior to the institution of this suit complainants as plaintiffs in a law action had instituted a suit by attachment against the defendant George W. Bean, a non-resident, and in the attachment had procured personal service on the said George W. Bean in Washington, D. C. The attachment suit resulted in judgment prior to the entry of final decree in this suit against Bean in the sum of $4,131.76 and costs. The judgment was a judgment of court entered on a jury verdict and was in the following language:
"It is therefore, considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, The First National Bank of Clearwater, a corporation, do have and recover out of the lands of the defendant G. W. Bean herein so attached as aforesaid, the sum of $4131.76 as its damages by it sustained for Principal, Interest and Attorneys’ fees, together with the further sum of $13.30 as its costs in and about this suit expended, for which let execution *369issue specially against the lands of the defendant herein so attached as aforesaid, and to said plaintiff rendered. ’ ’
The judgment appears by the record submitted to have been properly and lawfully entered in due course and was not such a judgment as was before this Court in the case of Cornwell vs. Williford, 73 Fla. 305, 73 Sou. 595, in which case final judgment was attempted to have been entered by the Clerk on a default entered by the Clerk.
The record discloses ample substantial evidence to sustain the final decree.
The office and application of the creditor’s bill was clearly stated by Mr. Justice Davis in the opinion of this Court in the case of B. L. E. Realty Corporation vs. Mary Williams Co., Inc., filed at this term of the Court and upon authority of the opinion in that ease and the eases therein cited, and for the reasons heretofore stated, the decree appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Wíhtfpíld, and Terrell, J.J., concur.
Davis, J., concurs specially.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., dissent.
.(concurring) : — There was no legal authority to charge the official court reporter’s fees for taking testimony as part of the costs in this ease, unless consented to by defendants, especially when Master’s fees are also allowed. A local rule of court having such object would be unenforeible. See State vs. Call, 39 Fla. 504, 22 Sou. 748. But where appellant avails himself of the testimony so taken and uses it on appeal, I cannot see where he has any cause of complaint because so using the testimony, he in effect becomes obligated to pay for it at the price fixed. But for the fact that the testimony taken has been used on this appeal, I would be inclined to hold that the fees of the stenographer must be eliminated unless consented to by parties. The same applies to fees for copies of documents. The Master’s fees are of course allowable.
Davis, J.,
.(concurring) : — There was no legal authority to charge the official court reporter’s fees for taking testimony as part of the costs in this ease, unless consented to by defendants, especially when Master’s fees are also allowed. A local rule of court having such object would be unenforeible. See State vs. Call, 39 Fla. 504, 22 Sou.
748. But where appellant avails himself of the testimony so taken and uses it on appeal, I cannot see where he has any cause of complaint because so using the testimony, he in effect becomes obligated to pay for it at the price fixed. But for the fact that the testimony taken has been used on this appeal, I would be inclined to hold that the fees of the stenographer must be eliminated unless consented to by parties. The same applies to fees for copies of documents. The Master’s fees are of course allowable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. Manget, 132 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1938)…e had. Armour Fertilizer Works v. First National Bank of Brooksville, 87 Fla. 436, 100 So. 362, and authorities there collected and cited; B. L. E. Realty Co. v. Mary Williams Co., 100 Fla. 254, 134 So. 47; Bean v. First National Bank of Clearwater, 102 Fla. 367, 135 So. 803; Bay View Estates Corp. v. Southerland, 114 Fla. 635, 154 So. 894; Hillsborough County v. Dickenson, 125 Fla. 181, 169 So. 734. • The prevailing rule is that before a creditor can resort to his remedy by means of a creditors’ bill he m…
-
Riesen v. Md. Cas. Co., 153 Fla. 205 (Fla. 1943)…had. Armour Fertilizer Works v. First National Bank of Brooksville, 87 Fla. 436, 100 So. 362, and authorities here collected and cited; B.L.E. Realty Co. v. Mary Williams Company, 100 Fla. 254, 134 So. 47; Bean v. First National Bank of Clearwater, 102 Fla. 367, 135 So. 803; Bay View Estates Corp. v. Southerland, 114 Fla. 635, 154 So. 894; Hillsborough County v. Dickenson, 125 Fla. 181, 169 So. 734.” And further on in the same opinion it is said: “Another principle of law upon which this case may be deci…
-
First State Bank of Clermont v. Fitch, 105 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1932)…inst defendant F. H. Fitch on said debt in any court of law in this state, and that complainant has not stated such a cause as entitles it to any relief in a court of equity. In the recent case of Bean et al. v. First Nat. Bank of Clearwater, Fla., 135 So. 803, it was held that: “Where prior to the institution of a suit by way of Creditor’s bill, complainants as plaintiffs in a law action had instituted .suit by attachment against the debtor defendant, who was a non-resident, and such suit in attachment…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Roderick G. Ross v. Rhydon M. Call, 39 Fla. 504 (Fla. 1897)
- Cornwell v. Williford, 73 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1917)