Snedigar v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1935
• Citation: 163 So. 71,120 Fla. 596
• Parties: SNEDIGAR et al. v. NEW JERSEY FIDELITY & PLATE GLASS INS. CO. et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

163 So. 71

120 Fla. 596

SNEDIGAR et al. v. NEW JERSEY FIDELITY & PLATE GLASS INS. CO. et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 24, 1935

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1935.

En Banc.

Suit by London Operating Company against New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company, wherein Louis F. Snedigar and George J. Baya, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Snedigar & Baya, intervened. From certain interlocutory orders adverse to interveners, they appeal.

Reversed in part and remanded, and modified and affirmed in part. Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; J. B Johnson, Judge.

COUNSEL

Thomas H. Anderson, of Miami, for appellants.

Herbert U. Feibelman and Stanley C. Myers, both of Miami, and Waller & Pepper, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

OPINION

DAVIS Justice.

This is a separate appeal prosecuted by Louis F. Snedigar and George J. Baya, partners under the name and style of Snedigar &amp Baya, from certain interlocutory orders entered by the circuit court of Leon county in the case of London Operating Company v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company--a suit in chancery in which they were intervening claimants as provided for by chapter 16247 and chapter 16248 Acts 1933, relating to insolvent foreign surety companies. The orders appealed from were entered August 7, 1934, and October 27, 1934, respectively. The order of October 27 1934, has been considered and dealt with by this court in a separate appellate proceeding decided at the present term ( Kelly v. Knott, 163 So. 64, opinion filed June 24, 1935), so this opinion will relate particularly to the court's interlocutory order of August 7, 1934, in so far as it disposed of claims 35 to 39, aggregating the sum of $1,029.48 claimed by appellants, Snedigar & Baya, which claims were rejected by the circuit court.

The appellants' theory is that section 6302, C. G. L. section 4339, R. G. S., and chapter 16248, Acts 1933, declaratory of the policy thereof, specifically authorize and require the payment of 'all claims against' an insolvent surety company, out of the special securities deposited with the state treasurer to enable it to acquire a right to transact a surety company business in Florida, and that the wording of such statute is not subject to the restricted interpretations placed on it in the court below which was to the effect that the term 'claims against it' as used in section 6302, C. G. L., supra, means only such claims as arise against such surety company out of Florida bonds and contracts of...