Case Name: Henry L. Coe, Plaintiff in Error, v. Armour Fertilizer Works, a Corporation, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1916-01-28
Citations: 71 Fla. 89
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry L. Coe, Plaintiff in Error, v. Armour Fertilizer Works, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, JJ.,. concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 89–90

Head Matter:
Henry L. Coe, Plaintiff in Error, v. Armour Fertilizer Works, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.
Opinion filed January 28, 1916.
Section 2677 General Statutes of 1906 permitting execution against stockholders will not be held, unconstitutional in behalf of one who moves to quash and declines to proceed to protect his rights under section 1624, for illegality of execution.
Writ of Error to 'Circuit Court, Manatee County; F. A. Whitney, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Note. Judgment reversed by United States Supreme Court, 237 U. S. 413, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625.
Sparkman & Carter, for Plaintiff in Error;
Singeltary & Reaves, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Cockrell, J.
Upon the return of the mandate of this court upon the former hearing of this case, subnomine Armour Fertilizer Works v. Parish Vegetable & Fruit Co., 63 Fla. 64, 58 South. Rep. 231, a judgment was entered denying the motion to quash the execution issued against Henry L. Coe, as a stockholder of the Vegetable Company, which had no assets whereon to levy. To this judgment Coe prosecutes his writ of error.
Coe does not claim that he was in fact a stockholder, nor that there remains no balance due upon his stock, nor seek to interpose any of the defenses pointed out as open to him upon the former hearing, but stands boldly on his attack upon the constitutionality of the act and by a proceeding unknown to our practice. There does not appear to have been any forceable seizure of any property of the said Coe, other than the formal levy upon realty, which does not interfere with the owner's possession.
The statute presents many difficulties, that may arise as to others not similarly situated, and may as such be beyond the power of the legislature; but the party now before this Court has not brought himself within the class who may justly complain, and the judgment as to him, upon the authority of our former holding, is, therefore, affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, JJ.,. concur.