OCEAN & LAKE REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND PALM BEACH OCEAN REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
H. FRANCES CRAGIN AND GIRARD TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AS CO-TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CHARLES I. CRAGIN, DECEASED, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida Supreme Court case addressing whether a foreign trust company could bring a mortgage foreclosure action without qualifying to do business in Florida under state law. The court affirmed that the foreign trustee could proceed with foreclosure despite non-compliance with registration requirements.
The court held that the foreign trust company was not precluded from bringing the mortgage foreclosure action by the statutory requirements for foreign corporations to qualify to do business in Florida. The question was settled by prior precedent in Girard Trust Company v. Tampa Shores Development Company.
“Does Chapter 8531, Acts of 1921, as amended by Chapter 9287, Acts of 1923, Laws of Florida, preclude appellees from coming into the proper forum in this State for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage as above described, may be stated as the only question of law presented here for our consideration.”
Frames the central legal issue before the court regarding whether state foreign corporation statutes bar the trustees' foreclosure action.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn July 1925, H. Francis Cragin and Girard Trust Company, as trustees of Charles I. Cragin's estate, sold Florida land to Ocean & Lake Realty Company …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreign Corporation Qualification To Do Business cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In July 1925, H. Frances Cragin and Girard Trust Company, as Trustees of the Estate of Charles I. Cragin, sold to Ocean & Lake Realty Company certain lands in Palm Beach County, Florida, for a valuable consideration, a portion of which was in cash and the balance of $896,706.00 was represented by four promissory notes of $224,176.50, each payable in one, two, three, and four years with interest at sis per cent (6%) per annum until paid, the said notes being secured by a mortgage on the lands sold. In October 1925, Ocean and Lake Realty Company, conveyed the said lands to Palm Beach Ocean Realty Company, subject to the said mortgage.
In February, 1927, H. Frances Cragin and Girard Trust Company, as Trustees, filed their bill of complaint against Ocean & Lake Realty Company and Palm Beach Ocean Realty Company, et al, to foreclose the mortgage as here referred to. A demurrer and a plea to the bill were overruled both of which raised the question that Girard Trust Company could not bring suit in this State because it was a foreign corporation and had not qualified to do business in the State of Florida as required by Chapter 8531, Acts of 1921, as amended by Chapter 9287, Acts of 1923, Laws of Florida. Appeal was taken from the order on the demurrer and the plea.
Does Chapter 8531, Acts of 1921, as amended by Chapter 9287, Acts of 1923, Laws of Florida, preclude appellees from coming into the proper forum in this State for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage as above described, may be stated as the only question of law presented here for our consideration.
Chapter 8531, Acts of 1921, as amended by Chapter 9287, Acts of 1923, prescribes the conditions under which trust companies and foreign corporations may transact business in this State. It is urged by appellants that these acts are a complete bar to the appellee bringing this suit because they (appellees) have not complied with the terms thereof. We have examined the basis of appellants contention and we do not think it well grounded. We think further that the questions raised in the instant case are settled and precluded by the decision of this court in Girard Trust Company v. Tampa Shores Development Company, et al., reported in 95 Fla., 1010, 117 So. R. 786.
The decree of the chancellor is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierson v. Bill, 138 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1939)…ot shown or contended that Union Trust Company did more than this. Brecht, et al., v. Bur-ne Co., 91 Fla. 345, 108, So. 173; Girard Trust Company v. Tampa Shores Development Co., 95 Fla. 1010, 117 So. 786; Ocean & Lake Realty Co. v. Craigin, et al., 97 Fla. 452, 121 So. 460; Pape Inc. v. Finch, 107 Fla. 425, 136 So. 496; Hogue v. Morrison Construction Co., 115 Fla. 292, 156 So. 377. In this case, Union Trust Company being the foreign trust company in question is not the plaintiff and is not attempting to…
Authorities Cited
- Girard Tr. Co. v. Tampashores Dev. Co., 95 Fla. 1010 (Fla. 1928)