SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., E. L. HAWKINS, AS ADMINISTRATOR,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INSURANCE CO.
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 lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer, holding that a plaintiff suing on an administrator's bond must allege specific damages to recover, not just the bond's penal sum.
No, a plaintiff is not entitled to recover the full penal sum of an administrator's bond without alleging and proving specific damages to the estate caused by the administrator's default.
“There is no allegation in the declaration as to the amount or value of any property which came into the hands of the Administrator, by reason of his appointment as such, and no allegation as to what amount, if any, was lost to the estate by reason of the alleged default of the Administrator.”
This quote highlights the critical factual deficiency in the plaintiff's declaration that led to the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, as administrator de bonis non, sued the surety on the original administrator's bond. The declaration alleged the original administrator…
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 Proof Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a suit against the surety on an administrator’s bond.
The fourth amended declaration in effect simply alleged the death of the decedent, the fixing of the amount of administrator’s bond, the appointment of the Administrator, the execution of the bond by defendant, the failure of the Administrator to comply with the terms of the bond, the failure of the Administrator to perform any of the duties required of him, and that the Administrator absconded, has been removed as Administrator by the Probate Court and that plaintiff has been appointed Administrator de bonis non.
There is no allegation in the declaration as to the amount or value of any property which came into the hands of the Administrator, by reason of his appointment as such, and no allegation as to what amount, if any, was lost to the estate by reason of the alleged default of the Administrator.
Demurrer to declaration was sustained and judgment for defendant entered thereon.
It is the contention of appellant that the declaration is sufficient because as he claims, he is entitled to recover the full penal sum of the bond without alleging or showing what damage, if any, has accrued to the estate by reason of the alleged default of the Administrator.
We think it is elementary that this contention is untenable and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Millard F. Caldwell v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., 158 Fla. 677 (Fla. 1947)…BUFORD, J.: This is the second appearance of this case here (see Holland as Governor ex rel Hawkins v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, 156 Fla. 583, 23 Sou. (2d) 761, the difference being that in that suit Holland was named as Governor and in this suit his successor, Caldwell, is named. After the mandate went down following the result of disposition on the former appeal the plaintiff filed a n…1 / 3
-
Chavous v. Goodbred, 158 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1947)…ADAMS, J.: Upon this appeal we review a decree on final hearing dismissing a bill in equity. Previously we held the bill good. Chavous v. Goodbread, 156 Fla. 599, 23 So. 2d 761. Thereafter an answer was filed and testimony taken and upon final hearing the bill was dismissed. The first question is whether the required notice of local legislation under Article III, Section 21, Florida Constitution and Section 11.02 Fla. Sta…
-
Luke v. City OF ST. Petersburg & Morrison Food Servs., Inc., 107 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1958)…g municipalities but was otherwise substantially similar to the section as it now exists. This Court has recognized that as amended in 1938, Article '3, Section 21, limits the effect of Article 8, Section 8. Chavous v. Goodbread, 1945, 156 Fla. 599, 23 So. 2d 761; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Couch, 1939, 139 Fla. 353, 190 So. 723. See also City of [*4] Hialeah v. Piaffendorf, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 596. If the subject Act was within the purview of Article 8, Section 8 there remains no question as to its validity, f…