Singleton v. Knott
| Decision Date | 10 March 1931 |
| Citation | 133 So. 71,101 Fla. 1077 |
| Parties | SINGLETON et al. v. KNOTT, State Treasurer, et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Decision.
Suit by W. V. Knott, as Treasurer of the State of Florida, against G I. Singleton and others. From an order appointing receivers and from an order overruling demurrers to the amended bill of complaint, defendant G. I. Singleton and two others appeal.
Orders affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
The appointment, after notice and hearing, of a receiver to receive and collect securities given by a bank to trustees of county bonds to secure deposits of proceeds of bonds and other money provided for a sinking fund in such bank, where it appears from the sworn bill, affidavits, and other evidence before the court, that the bank is insolvent and in the hands of a receiver and the state banking department that the securities are of less value than the amount of deposits for which they were given to secure; that the county commissioners are without authority to enforce collection thereof and said securities are of such nature that they will depreciate and become in part worthless if immediate steps are not taken by a receiver or some authorized person to reduce same to their monetary value--is not an abuse of the chancellor's discretion.
The appointment, after notice and hearing, of a receiver of the books, accounts, and vouchers of county bond trustees relating to the handling of, and the disbursements by them made of, the proceeds of the bonds sold and the sinking fund by them received, where it appears from the sworn bill affidavits, and other evidence before the court, that the trustees are guilty of misappropriation and mismanagement of the trust fund; that they failed to account as required by statutes; that some of the books, records, and vouchers in which their accounts were kept have been lost or destroyed and that the proper preservation of these records is necessary for final ascertainment of the amount due the county by said trustees--is not an abuse of the chancellor's discretion.
The appointment of a receiver rests largely in the discretion of the court.
The title of an act is sufficient if it fairly gives notice of the subject of the act so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body thereof, and such title need not attempt to index the contents of the act.
Where all matters in the body of the act are fairly referable to, and are not inconsistent with, the title, the act does not violate the constitutional provision requiring the subject of an act to be briefly expressed in the title.
The Constitution clearly permits the Legislature to pass special laws as to county government.
The duties of the state treasurer as defined by the Constitution do not exclude other duties that may be imposed upon him by law.
Courts of Equity have jurisdiction of all trusts for the purpose of compelling an accounting, and the existence of any confidential or fiduciary relation is sufficient to invoke such jurisdiction whenever the duties arising out of such relation rest upon one of the parties to render an accounting to the other.
Where the bill primarily seeks an accounting and the remaining relief asked is incidental and germane to the accounting, such bill is proper for consideration by a court of equity.
The rule as to multifariousness is regarded merely as a matter of convenience in the administration of justice.
Section 4201 (2561), Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, providing that a person in whose name a contract is made for the benefit of another may sue without joining with him the person for whose benefit the action is prosecuted, does not prevent joining the person for whose benefit the suit is instituted in an action brought by the person in whose name the contract is made.
Where the parties complainant in an equity proceeding have a common interest in the subject of the litigation and have some relation to each other growing out of the common interest and the allegations are of a single, distinct equity as to which a specific relief is prayed against some of the defendants, the bill of complaint is not multifarious. Appeal from Circuit Court, Citrus County; Fred L. Stringer, judge.
D. Niel Ferguson, of Ocala, for appellants.
Whitaker, Himes & Whitaker, of Tampa, and Fred H. Davis, Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This is an appeal by trustees of county bonds from an adverse ruling on demurrers and order appointing receivers.
The suit is brought by W. V. Knott, as treasurer of the state of Florida; Citrus county, Fla.; J. K. Kelley, as chairman, and J. A. Perryman, L. C. Yeomans, W. R. Levins, and Burton Gilbert, as the remaining members of, and together constituting, the board of county commissioners of Citrus county, Fla.; against G. I. Singleton, W. H. Edwards, and I. O. Fender, individually and as trustees; also against Royal Indemnity Company, a corporation, certain named banks and bank receivers, and against Ernest Amos, as comptroller of the state of Florida.
The sworn bill of complaint as amended sets forth issuance and sale of Citrus county bonds for road and bridge purposes, appointment and qualification of trustees under existing applicable statutes, receipt by trustees of proceeds of bonds and other money provided for a sinking fund, and avers there has been a misappropriation and conversion in part of the bond money and sinking fund by trustees. See Royal Indemnity Co. v. W. V. Knott as Treasurer and Others (Fla.) 136 So. 474, decided at this term, being an appeal herein from an order of the court below overruling the demurrer of the Royal Indemnity Company to the amended bill of complaint.
Two receivers were appointed; one to receive and collect the securities delivered by the trustees to the board of county commissioners, and the other to take over from the trustees and hold all books of account, minutes, records, and vouchers in their possession relating to bonds issued and sold pursuant to the provisions of chapter 11451, Laws of Florida (1925, Ex. Sess.), with directions to the receiver as to the care and preservation of such records and with the right to all parties to this suit to examine such records and make excerpts therefrom. Appellants demurred to the bill of complaint on identical grounds. These demurrers were overruled. This appeal is from the order appointing the receivers and from the order overruling the demurrers interposed by appellant trustees to the bill as amended.
It is contended the court erred in appointing a receiver to receive and collect the securities given to the trustees to secure deposits in the two banking institutions named as defendants. The bill avers these securities, upon demand, were turned over by the trustees to the county commissioners; that these banks are insolvent and in the hands of a receiver and the state banking department; that the securities are of less value than the amount of deposits for which they were given to secure; that the county commissioners are without authority to enforce collection thereof, and said securities are of such nature that they will depreciate and become in part worthless if immediate steps are not taken by a receiver or some authorized person to reduce the same to their monetary value.
It is also contended that the court below erred in appointing a receiver of the books, accounts, and vouchers of the trustees relating to the handling of, and the disbursements by them made of, the proceeds of the bonds sold and the sinking fund by them received.
Chapter 13949, Sp. Laws of Florida 1929, abolished the office of bond trustees by held by appellants. The bill alleges that trustees are guilty of misappropriation and mismanagement of the trust fund; that they failed to account as required by statutes; that some of the books, records, and vouchers in which their accounts were kept have been lost or destroyed; and that the proper preservation of these records is necessary for final ascertainment of the amount due the county by said trustees. The court below, in its order appointing the receiver for these books, accounts, and vouchers, carefully directed the safe-keeping of these records in a vault, and in such order provided that the right of access of the trustees to such records might continue and that they might make excerpts therefrom.
The appointment of a receiver rests largely in the discretion of the court. Armour Fertilizer Works v. First Nat. Bank, 87 Fla. 436, 100 So. 362; Frisbee v. Timanus, 12 Fla. 300; Lehman v. Trust Co. of America, 57 Fla. 473, 49 So. 502; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., 98 Fla. 946, 124 So. 719; Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241.
It appears the receivers were appointed after notice and hearing had and no abuse of discretion has been made to appear.
It is contended that chapter 13949, Sp. Laws of Florida, 1929, entitled 'An Act Relating to County and District Bonds; Prescribing the Duties of the State Treasurer in Relation Thereto; and Abolishing the office of Bond Trustees in Citrus County, Florida,' violates section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution, requiring the subject of an act to 'be briefly expressed in the title.'
Section 1 of chapter 13949 provides for the registration of all county bonds of Citrus county; section 2 provides that the state treasurer shall keep an accurate account of all such bonds, and that the state treasurer, when requested by the county or taxing district as the case may be, as well as by a citizen, shall furnish such information in regard thereto as may be desired on payment of costs of furnishing same; section 3 provides for the payment of tax money applicable to such bonds directly to the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Bakeries Co. v. Haines City
...761, 163 So. 108; State ex rel. Adams v. Lee, 122 Fla. 639, 166 So. 249; Flint v. Duval County, 126 Fla. 18, 170 So. 587; Singleton v. Knott, 101 Fla. 1077, 133 So. 71; Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248, 147 So. Sheip & Co. v. Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699. The generality of the title of a st......
-
Howarth v. City of De Land
... ... Pricha, 70 Fla. 265, 70 So. 406; Hinely v. Wilson, ... 91 Fla. 815, 109 So. 468; In re DeWoody, 94 Fla. 96, ... 113 So. 677; Singleton v. Knott, 101 Fla. 1077, 133 ... The ... Legislature must be allowed a wide latitude in enacting law ... as respects constitutional ... ...
-
Thomas v. Carlton
... ... mandatority required under the provisions of section 3 of ... said chapter 14486 ... Appellants ... have cited the case of Singleton et al. v. Knott et ... al., 101 Fla. 1077, 133 So. 71, as supporting their ... contention that the county commissioners should be [106 Fla ... ...
-
Garner v. Pearson
...would thereby be remedied. Beneficiaries of an express trust may, of course, seek an accounting relating to the trust. Singleton v. Knott, 101 Fla. 1077, 133 So. 71 (1931). an accounting may also be had against a constructive trustee. Tri-City Electric Service Co. v. Jarvis, 206 Ind. 5, 185......