Harris Inv. Co. v. Hood
Decision Date | 31 March 1936 |
Citation | 123 Fla. 598,167 So. 25 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Parties | HARRIS INV. CO. et al. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks for North Carolina v. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks for North Carolina. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks for North Carolina v. HARRIS. |
Action by Gurney P. Hood, as Commissioner of Banks for North Carolina, against the Harris Investment Company, Wallace L Harris, and another. From a part of an order denying motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, the Harris Investment Company and John E. Harris appeal, and, from part of an order quashing the service by publication attempted to be had on second named defendant, plaintiff cross-appeals.
Affirmed and remanded.
DAVIS J., dissenting in part. Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; DeWitt T. Gray, judge.
A. L Brogden and Blount & Jones, all of Jacksonville, for appellants.
Axtell & Rinehart and R. R. Axtell, all of Jacksonville, for appellee.
Gurney P. Hood, as commissioner of banks for the state of North Carolina, exhibited his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Duval county, Fla., against Harris Investment Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Florida, John E. Harris, individually and as incorporator of, and as a stockholder in, Harris Investment Company, and Wallace L. Harris individually and as an incorporator of, and as a stockholder in, Harris Investment Company, and John E. Harris, Jr., individually and as an incorporator of, and as a stockholder in, Harris Investment Company.
The allegation of the bill of complaint showed that the North Carolina Bank & Trust Company was a bank organized under the laws of North Carolina and doing business in that state as a banking institution prior to March 3, 1933; that on that date it was closed under the general Proclamation of the President during the term known as the banking holiday (No. 2039, 12 U.S.C.A. § 95 note), and that, when that was ended, the bank was not permitted to reopen, but continued to operate under restrictions until May 21, 1933, when the complainant, under the laws of North Carolina, took possession of the bank, and thereafter, complying with the laws of North Carolina, filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Guilford county, N. C., notice of possession of the bank; that thereafter, on June 22, 1933, complainant, in his official capacity, levied an assessment against each and every of the stockholders of said bank equal to the stock liability of each stockholder in said bank, computing the liability on the par value of the stock which was held; that a copy of the levy was, in accordance with the laws of North Carolina, docketed in the office of the clerk of the superior court for Guilford county, N. C., as a judgment against each of said stockholders; that Harris Investment Company, as the apparent owner of 404 shares of said bank stock, was assessed for the sum of $4,040, and judgment was entered thereon under the laws of North Carolina against the said Harris Investment Company for said sum and costs on the said 22nd day of June, 1933. And it is alleged that said assessment or judgment bears interest from July 3, 1933, at the rate of six per cent. per annum.
It is further alleged that:
'The Harris Investment Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on the 1st day of July, A. D. 1930; that its incorporators and the amount of stock subscribed by each are as follows, to-wit:
John E. Harris, Jr. ..... ten (10) shares
Wallace L. Harris ..... ten (10) shares
Tyndall W. Harris ..... ten (10) shares
'That the said corporation's officers are as follows, to-wit: John E. Harris, President; Wallace L. Harris, Vice-President; and that prior to his death on or about the 1st day of December, A. D. 1932, Tyndall W. Harris was the Secretary and Treasurer; that the total amount of the authorized capital stock of the said corporation is Five Thousand and No/100 ($5,000.00) Dollars.
'Your orator is informed and believes and alleges upon information and belief, that the said Harris Investment Company never conducted any business; that the said company was owned and controlled by the defendants, John E. Harris, Wallace L. Harris and, prior to his death, Tyndall W. Harris; that the defendant, the Harris Investment Company, has no other assets than the said Four Hundred Four (404) shares of said Bank stock; that there was no consideration existing for the transfer of the said Four Hundred Four (404) shares.
Personal service was had on Harris Investment Company and on John E. Harris and on John E. Harris, Jr.; it being shown that John E. Harris and John E. Harris, Jr., are one and the same person. Service by publication was attempted to be had on Wallace L. Harris. Special appearance was filed in behalf of Wallace L. Harris, as follows:
'Comes now the defendant, Wallace L. Harris, by his undersigned solicitors, and appears solely exclusively and specially in this cause for the sole and only purpose of testing the jurisdiction of this said Court over the person of the defendant Wallace L. Harris, by virtue or by reason of the order of service by publication heretofore entered herein and the service of process purported to have been had upon this defendant, Wallace L. Harris, pursuant to such order of service by publication, and for no other purpose whatsoever.'
Motion ot quash the service by publication was also filed on the following grounds:
'1. Because it affirmatively appears from the allegations and prayers of the bill of complaint in this cause that the plaintiff in said cause seeks exclusively an in personam judgment and/or decree against this defendant.
'2. Because this court cannot, pursuant to an order of service by publication, acquire jurisdiction of the person of this defendant for the purpose of rendering an in personam judgment or decree.
The prayer for relief against Wallace L. Harris is as follows 'That Wallace L. Harris...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nettles v. Sottile
... ... v. Snyder, 79 F. (2d) 263, 103 A.L.R. 912 (C.C.A.8th); ... Harris ... v. Snyder, 79 F. (2d) 263, 103 A.L.R. 912 (C.C.A.8th); ... Harris Investment Co. v. Hood ... ...
-
Nettles v. Rhett
...Soper, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 190; Durrance v. Collier, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 4; Brusselback v. Cago Corp., 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 20; Harris Investment Co. v. Hood, 123 Fla. 598, 167 So. 25, but also where the holding company was formed for the bona fide purpose of saving the bank or bringing about and contro......
- International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt
-
Dennis v. Kline
...Mott v. First Nat'l Bank of St. Petersburg, 98 Fla. 444, 124 So. 36, 37 (1929) (citations omitted); see also Harris Inv. Co. v. Hood, 123 Fla. 598, 167 So. 25, 29 (1936) (describing the exception to the full faith and credit clause for a conflict in public policy as “narrow”). However, “[l]......