Tourist Channel, Inc. v. Namey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tourist Channel, Inc. v. Namey

568 So. 2d 543, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186, 1990 WL 160707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

DocketNos. 89-1255, 89-1332

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 568 So. 2d 543 (Tourist Channel, Inc. v. Namey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tourist Channel, Inc. v. Namey, 568 So. 2d 543, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186, 1990 WL 160707 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver pendente lite of two corporations, The Tourist Channel, Inc., and Specialty Broadcasting Corp., both of which would like the use of a low power FCC television license to the exclusion of the other, that enjoins certain stockholders and officers of the two corporations from interfering with the operations of the corporations and that requires the delivery of certain documents to the receiver. The order included a requirement that the stockholders deliver to the receiver stock certificates issued to them by the corporations. A receiver has no right to property which does not belong to the corporation over which the receiver was appointed. Hamilton v. Flowers, 134 Fla. 328, 183 So. 811 (1938).

The order of the trial court is affirmed except that we quash that portion which ordered James R. Harper, Jr., Daniel L. Deyton, Charles S. Namey, and Richard E. Namey and their agents, employees, and attorneys to deliver immediately to the receiver issued stock certificates of the above-named two corporations.

AFFIRMED in part; QUASHED in part.

DAUKSCH, COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver pendente lite of two corporations, The Tourist Channel, Inc., and Specialty Broadcasting Corp., both of which would like the use of a low power FCC television license to the exclusion of the other, that enjoins certain stockholders and officers of the two corporations from interfering with the operations of the corporations and that requires the delivery of certain documents to the receiver. The order included a requirement that the stockholders deliver to the receiver stock certificates issued to them by the corporations. A receiver has no right to property which does not belong to the corporation over which the receiver was appointed. Hamilton v. Flowers, 134 Fla. 328, 183 So. 811 (1938).

The order of the trial court is affirmed except that we quash that portion which ordered James R. Harper, Jr., Daniel L. Deyton, Charles S. Namey, and Richard E. Namey and their agents, employees, and attorneys to deliver immediately to the receiver issued stock certificates of the above-named two corporations.

AFFIRMED in part; QUASHED in part.

DAUKSCH, COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 543, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186, 1990 WL 160707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tourist-channel-inc-v-namey-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack