State v. Atkinson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtBUFORD, Justice.
Citation146 So. 581,108 Fla. 325
PartiesSTATE et rel. PORTER et al. v. ATKINSON, Circuit Judge, et al.
Decision Date20 February 1933

146 So. 581

108 Fla. 325

STATE et rel. PORTER et al.
v.
ATKINSON, Circuit Judge, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

February 20, 1933


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 [108 Fla. 326] 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.

OPINION

BUFORD, Justice.

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, [146 So. 582] 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.

[108 Fla. 327] 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:

'In the exercise of the sovereign power of the state, statutes provide administrative regulations for the supervision of banks and of building and loan associations by the state through the state comptroller and also provide that under stated conditions relating to insolvency or to illegality of management, the comptroller may take possession of the property and business of such banks and associations and if necessary or advisable to do so, the comptroller is by statute authorized to appoint as his agents liquidators through whom the comptroller shall administer on such assets and business; the legislative purpose being to facilitate the liquidation and settlement of the affairs of such insolvent banks and associations in the most economical and expeditious manner. Should the comptroller or his agents violate the law in such administration, the courts may adjudicate controversies or afford appropriate relief as to particular matters that may be involved in such statutory administration. See Lake Worth Inlet Dist. v. Am. Bank & Trust Co., 97 Fla. 174, 120 So 316; Reddick v. State, 96 Fla. 140, 117 So. 510 Amos v. Baird, 96 Fla. 181, 117 So. 789 Glidden, Adm'x, v. Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834, 119 So. 140, 120 So. 1; Atlantic Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Pratt, Receiver, 95 Fla. 822, 116 So. 635; Bryan v. Bullock, 84 Fla. 179, 93 So. 182.'

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 [108 Fla. 328] that, when a statute is adopted from another state or country and such statute has been previously...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Aiuppa, No. 44264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 1, 1974
    ...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 enactment, by the ......
  • Akey v. Murphy, No. 39419
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 13, 1970
    ...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 California......
  • Flammer v. Patton, No. 38827
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 17, 1971
    ...judicial construction of the statute. See Blank v. Yoo Hoo of Florida Corp., 222 So.2d 420 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Porter v. Atkinson, 108 Fla. 325, 146 So. 581 Page 859 (1933); Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876 (1894). Recently, in Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94 (Fla.1970), we were ask......
  • Hewitt v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 21, 1933
    ...the further entertainment of it. This is so because the jurisdiction of the county court rests on substance and not on form alone with [146 So. 581] respect to the actual controversy, and form alone cannot support the jurisdiction of the county court where is no basis in substance for holdi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Aiuppa, No. 44264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 1, 1974
    ...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 enactment, by the ......
  • Akey v. Murphy, No. 39419
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 13, 1970
    ...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 California......
  • Flammer v. Patton, No. 38827
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 17, 1971
    ...judicial construction of the statute. See Blank v. Yoo Hoo of Florida Corp., 222 So.2d 420 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Porter v. Atkinson, 108 Fla. 325, 146 So. 581 Page 859 (1933); Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876 (1894). Recently, in Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94 (Fla.1970), we were ask......
  • Hewitt v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 21, 1933
    ...the further entertainment of it. This is so because the jurisdiction of the county court rests on substance and not on form alone with [146 So. 581] respect to the actual controversy, and form alone cannot support the jurisdiction of the county court where is no basis in substance for holdi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT