Mallett v. Tunnicliffe, as Liqdr., (1932)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 8
Judges: TERRELL, J. —
Attorneys: George Palmer Garrett, for Appellant;
H. M. Voorhis, for Appellee.
Filed: Dec. 21, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is our third consideration of this case. See Mallett vs. Tunnicliffe, et al., 102 Fla. 809 , 136 So. 346 , *Page 689 rehearing denied 102 Fla. 820 , 137 So. 238 . In the former appeal the order of the Chancellor sustaining a general demurrer to the bill of complaint was reversed because it showed equity as to the claim of preference in favor of Appellant in the sum of $8,150. Immediately after this claim accrued Mrs. Mallett had further correspondence with the State Bank of Orlando and Trus
Summary: This is our third consideration of this case. See Mallett vs. Tunnicliffe, et al., 102 Fla. 809 , 136 So. 346 , *Page 689 rehearing denied 102 Fla. 820 , 137 So. 238 . In the former appeal the order of the Chancellor sustaining a general demurrer to the bill of complaint was reversed because it showed equity as to the claim of preference in favor of Appellant in the sum of $8,150. Immediately after this claim accrued Mrs. Mallett had further correspondence with the State Bank of Orlando and Trust..
More
I think Mrs. Mallett has a preferred claim for the full amount of her deposit $13,697.14. My views are expressed in dissenting opinion in the case of Garrett vs. Tunnicliffe, Liquidator (107 Fla. 393, 145 So. 213), and I think she should be paid in full. My views expressed in the concurring opinion in the case of Everglade Cypress Co. vs. Tunnicliffe, Liquidator (107 Fla. 675, 148 So. 192), both opinions filed December __, 1932.
Source: CourtListener
