Hewitt Hewitt v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 145 So. 883 (Fla. 1933). · Go Syfert
Search
Hewitt Hewitt v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 145 So. 883 (Fla. 1933). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 · 2 courts · …employed to relieve from fraud or mistake, but is not allowed if it works any injustice to the rights of others. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · …is not allowed if it works any injustice to the rights of others. ⚠ not in text
82 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1933 1979 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Suntrust Bank v. Riverside Nat. Bank (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
it is shown that ... complainant secured an abstract of title to said lands, but that it showed no record of the mortgage held by alderman.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sherman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883, 885 (1933); see also Brannon v. Hills, 111 Fla. 491 , 149 So. 556, 557 (1933); Eastern Nat’l Bank v. Glendale Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Velazquez v. Serrano
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883, 885 (1933); see also Brannon v. Hills, 111 Fla. 491 , 149 So. 556, 557 (1933); Eastern Nat’l Bank v. Glendale Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Senchuk
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Several years later, in Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , *719 145 So. 883, 885-86 (1933), the court again applied the doctrine, stating: In representing that there were no other incumbrances on the lands mortgaged, Godwin perpetrated a fraud on appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SOUTHERN COLONIAL MORTG. v. Medeiros
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] United of Florida, Inc. v. Illini Federal Savings & Loan Association, 341 So.2d 793 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). [2] Id. [3] Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883, at 885 (1933).
cited Cited "see" Picker Financial Group L.L.C. v. Horizon Bank
M.D. Fla. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anison v. Rice, 282 S.W.2d 497 (Mo.1955) and Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883 (1933).
cited Cited "see" Mayfair Builders, Inc. v. Gordon (In Re Gordon)
Bankr. S.D. Florida · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Godwin, 145 So. at 884-85 ; see also RTC v. Niagara Asset Corp., 598 So .2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
discussed Cited "see" Resolution Trust Corp. v. Niagara Asset Corp. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883 (1933).
cited Cited "see" Washington SEC. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 1932, 107 Fla. 537, 546 , 145 So. 883 .
cited Cited "see" Ulery v. Asphalt Paving, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 1933, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883 , modifying, 1931, 107 Fla. 537 , 136 So. 513 .
discussed Cited "see" R. D. Lamar, Inc. v. Ray (2×)
Fla. · 1938 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hewitt, et al., v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 108 Fla. 39 , 145 Sou. 883 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wolf v. Spariosu
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Equitable subrogation "is not available to a mere volunteer or stranger who, without any duty or obligation to intervene and without being so requested, pays the debt of another." West American Insurance Co. v. Yellow Cab Co., 495 So.2d 204, 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 504 So.2d 769 (Fla.1987); see also Eastern, 508 So.2d at 1324 . "`Conventional subrogation[, however,] arises by virtue of an agreement, express or implied, that a third person or one having no previous interest in the matter involved shall, upon discharging an obligation or paying a debt, be substituted in the place…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." BancFlorida v. Hayward
Fla. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Federal Land Bank v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537 , 145 So. 883 (1933)(new mortgage given by same mortgagee as renewal of old mortgage held to take priority over intervening mortgage).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clarence W. Hewitt and Elizabeth Hewitt, Appellants,
v.
Punta Gorda State Bank, Appellee
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 13, 1933.
145 So. 883
Thomas W. Butler, for Appellants; Leitner Leitner, for Appellee.
Brown.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
Brown, J.

The bill in this case is hardly sufficient as' a creditor’s bill in that it nowhere alleges that the judgment debtor had only an equitable title to the property. George E. Sebring Co. v. O’Rourke 101 Fla. 885, 134 So. 556; Cowdery v. Herring 143 So. 433. Nor does the bill allege that the fraudulent conveyances are obstacles to the full enforcement of the judgment, not is there any prayer for the vacation or cancellation of such fraudulent conveyances, nor to remove them as clouds on the title to the property. Balsey v. Union Cypress Co. 110 So. 263, 92 Fla. 706; Punta Gorda State Bank v. Wilder 112 So. 569, 93 Fla. 301. The bill alleges that transfers of certain property were made for[*40] the purpose of hindering, delaying and defeating complainant’s judgments. This is in substance about all that the bill alleges. The only prayer of the bill was that the property be decreed to be the property of the judgment debtors. While no objection to the prayer of a bill can be raised by a motion to dismiss' or demurrer,’ the allegations of the bill in this case are not sufficient under the authorities' above cited, to give the bill equity, either as a bill to set aside fraudulent conveyances, or as a creditor’s bill.

The court below should have sustained appellant’s motion to dismiss the bill, and its failure to do so constitutes error for which the order appealed from must be reversed. The motion to dismiss sthe appeal will be denied.

Whether a motion to dismiss, under the 1931 Chancery Act, should be considered, for most practical purposes, as the equivalent of a general demurrer, so that the Chancellor would be authorized to grant the motion with leave to amend, or require an amendment within a specified time to meet the objections raised by the motion to dismiss, otherwise the bill to stand dismissed, are questions which we are not called upon to decide in this case, though they may arise upon further proceedings in the court below.. The writer is inclined to think the Chancellor has this authority. See in this connection Section 33 of the 1931 Chancery Act and Mr. Edward McCarthy’s Annotations of that Act recently published, pages 58-59.

Reversed and remanded.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.

Davis, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment filed under Rule 21A.