Case Name: S. R. Langston, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. M. Gornto, as Receiver of the Citizens Bank of Mayo, a Corporation, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1925-10-20
Citations: 90 Fla. 378
Docket Number: 
Parties: S. R. Langston, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. M. Gornto, as Receiver of the Citizens Bank of Mayo, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
S. R. Langston, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. M. Gornto, as Receiver of the Citizens Bank of Mayo, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.
Division A.
Opinion Filed October 20, 1925.
The judgment in this ease is reversed upon the authority of Chavous v. Gornto, — Fla, —, 102 South. Rep. 754.
A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Lafayette County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
W. P. Chavous, for Plaintiff; in Error;
J. M. Gornto and Hal W. Adams, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
West, C. J.
This is an action by the receiver against a stockholder of an insolvent State Bank to enforce payment by the stockholder of an assessment made against him by the Comptroller of the State. There was a demurrer to the declaration, which was overruled. Subsequently pleas were filed, four sets in all during the progress of the action, all of which went out either upon motion to strike or demurrer. Final judgment thereupon was entered for plaintiff. The ruling on the pleadings and the entry of judgment are the basis of the assignments of error.
The case requires only brief discussion, since all the points presented have previously been considered and decided. Chavous v. Gornto, — Fla. —, 102 South. Rep. 754.
The action is predicated upon the same assessment by the Comptroller against the stockholders of the same bank, as in the above cited case, the only difference in that case and this being the stockholder against whom as defendant the action was brought.
Of the last series of pleas filed the first and second were stricken on motion. The first of these denied that the defendant owned or ever had owned any interest in any of the capital stock of the bank. The second avers discharge of the claim sued on by payment. The ruling striking these pleas was error, and the judgment must be reversed upon authority of Chavous v. Gornto, supra. There is no error' in the ruling sustaining demurrers to pleas three to nine inclusive.
Eeversed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.