State v. Atkinson
Decision Date | 20 February 1933 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE et rel. PORTER et al. v. ATKINSON, Circuit Judge, et al. |
En Banc.
Original proceeding by the State on the relation of E. M. Porter and another, against H. F. Atkinson, as Circuit Judge, and others, for writ of prohibition.
Demurrer overruled, and peremptory writ of prohibition ordered issued.
COUNSEL James M. Carson, E. B. Kurtz, and Kurtz & Reed all of Miami, for relators.
Burdine Terry & Fleming and Richard H. Hunt, all of Miami, for respondents.
This case is one of original jurisdiction in which this court issued a rule nisi in prohibition to Honorable H. F Atkinson, judge of the circuit court of the Eleventh judicial circuit of Florida, Lora L. Lasseter, joined by her husband Platt A. Lasseter, in a case then pending in the circuit court of Dade county wherein it was alleged that the circuit judge, on petition of other defendants, the Lasseters, was assuming jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to take charge of and wind up the affairs of a building and loan corporation known as Dade County Security Company.
The only practical difference between the case presented here and that which was presented in State ex rel. Dade County Security Company et al. v. Barns et al., 99 Fla. 1258 128 So. 860, 861, is that in the Barns Case the record showed that Dade County Security Company was at the time in the hands of a liquidator under appointment of the state comptroller and that it was sought to supersede the power and authority of the comptroller to conduct the liquidation, while in the instant case the record shows that the comptroller had made an order, the effect of which was to turn the affairs of the company back into the hands of the shareholders and directors thereof and to discharge the liquidator. The complainants in the court below contended that the comptroller had abandoned the liquidation of the company when the affairs of that company were in such condition as to require a continuation of liquidation and when such affairs did not warrant the return of the management of the company to shareholders and directors.
We find no conflict in decisions from other jurisdictions with what was said by this court in State ex rel. Dade County Security Company et al. v. Barns et al., supra, in the following language:
Our statute (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 6052 et seq.) was adopted from the federal statute known as the National Banking Act (see 12 USCA § 21 et seq.). In fact, it differs from that act only in that the federal act places certain power in the comptroller of the currency of the United States whereas the Florida statutes vest the power in the comptroller of the state. It is a well settled rule of construction that, when a statute is adopted from another state or country and such statute has been previously construed by the courts of such state or country, the statute is deemed, as a general rule, to have been adopted with the construction so given to it. See Kidd v. City of Jacksonville, 97 Fla. 297, 120 So. 556, and cases there cited.
In Boyd v. Schneider, 131 F. 223, 227, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit said:
In Hulse v. Argetsinger (D. C.) 12 F. (2d) 933, 935, the court said:
Other states have adopted statutes like ours, all of which appear to have been taken from the National Banking Act and it appears that in such states it has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Aiuppa
...have been adopted with the construction given to them by the courts of the state from which they were adopted. State ex rel. Porter v. Atkinson, 108 Fla. 325, 146 So. 581 (1933). A statute adopted from another state is governed by the construction placed upon it, at the time of its enactmen......
-
Akey v. Murphy
...has been many times followed by this court. See Gray v. Standard Dredging Co., 109 Fla. 87, 149 So. 733 (1933); State ex rel. Porter v. Atkinson, 108 Fla. 325, 146 So. 581 (1933); and, most recently, Blank v. Yoo Hoo of Florida Corp., Fla.1969, 222 So.2d 420. It seems that the statutes of C......
-
Flammer v. Patton
... ... We have long held that when our Legislature adopts a statute from another state, we should adopt that state's judicial construction of the statute. See Blank v. Yoo Hoo of Florida Corp., 222 So.2d 420 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. orter v. Atkinson, 108 Fla. 325, 146 So. 581 ... (1933); Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876 (1894) ... Recently, in Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94 ... ...
- Hewitt v. State