CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 155 Fla. 506, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 562
...mily Finance Service, Inc., a corporation licensed to do ‘Small Loan Business’ in the State of Florida under Sections
516.01 et seq. of the 1941 Florida Statutes, served on the Tampa Shipbuilding Company, plaintiff Giles’ employer, pursuant to Section
516.17 of the said Statutes, two certified copies of assignments of wages, one executed by John K....
...first on ■said note, and that the borrower of said money was and is a .person other than the. plaintiff,.all of which is well known to the Family Finance Service. For the foregoing reasons said ■assignment of wages cannot be enforced under said Section 516.17 of the 1941 Florida Statutes. It therefore follows that the notice of assignment of wages, given to the Tampa Shipbuilding Company by the Family Finance Service under said Section 516.17 of the 1941 Florida Statutes was without authority and should have been ignored by the Tampa. Shipbuilding Company.’ “‘(c) That the said assignment of wages cannot be enforced under said Section 516.17 of the 1941 Florida Statutes for the reason that the amount of the loan made to the .‘borrower’ was not paid to such ‘borrower’ simultaneous with the execution of such assignment.’ *509 “ ‘ (g) That the said Section 516.17 is unconstitutional and invalid- in that it provides for the taking: of property without due process of law.’ = •' ;■ • • On....
...d January 29, 1944, recorded' in Chancery Order Book 345, page 376. ■ 1! The questions presented by the appeal are as follows: “Question No. 1. May a licensee, operating-under the small loan act, avail himself of the statutory remedy provided by Section 516.17, 1941 Florida Laws, as against an accommodation maker of a promissory note who also gave such licensee an assignment of his future wages to secure payment of such promissory note?” “Question No. 2. Is an assignment of wages made pursuant to Section 516.17 of the 1941 Florida Statutes valid if the amount of the loan is not paid to the 'Borrower’ simultaneously with is execution ? “Question No. 3. Does Section 516.17 of the 1941 Florida Statutes violate the due process clause of the State and Federal Constitutions ?” The assignments of error relied on by plaintiff Giles are as follows: ' “1....
...ntly and severally borrowers of the sum of money borrowed, and the delivery of that money to either of the borrowers was a delivery to all and singular the borrowers, and the delivery of the statement and of a copy of the statute as required by Sec. 516.17 Fla....
...ion was sufficient to bind the borrower, he would be bound to perform his obligation of surety. See Trustees System Co. of Newark v. Stoll, 13 N. J. Misc. 490, 179 Atl. 372 . The other question presented here challenges the constitutionality of Sec. 516.17 Fla....
