TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Florida Industrial Commission v. Schwob Co.

Florida Industrial Commission v. Schwob Company of Florida.

Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Schwob Co., 14 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1943)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 3, 1943
Judges
Adams, Buford, Brown, Thomas
Citations
14 So. 2d 666153 Fla. 3561943 Fla. LEXIS 632

Opinion of the Court — Adams

ADAMS, J.:

Appellee filed its petition in the Circuit Court of Leon County for the purpose of obtaining a redetermination of its rate of contribution under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act. For more than three years prior to July, 1940, Simon Schwob, as an individual, was operating a chain of clothing stores under the name of The Schwob Company, and was an employer under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act. In July, 1940, appellee corporation was formed and acquired the identical business formerly operated by The Schwob Company. Simon Schwob owned all stock in the corporation except qualifying shares issued to other parties at his direction. ■ Schwob exercised absolute control and supervision over the business just as he had done theretofore and by virtue of such facts claims the benefit of the three years’ experience of Schwob, the individual. The circuit court granted the petition and the Commission appeals.

Section 443.08, Fla. Stat. 1941, provides:

“(d) Employers shall be eligible for rate variations from *357 the standard rate of contributions, as hereinafter described in any calendar year, only if their employment records have been chargeable with benefit payments throughout the three consecutive calendar years ending on December 31 of the preceding calendar year.”

Even a court of equity ordinarily will not pierce the corporate veil in the absence of fraud. The person holding himself out as the alter ego of a corporation may not ask that the corporate identity be cast aside to avoid payments required by law.

Our conclusion is that the Commission correctly interpreted the law as it existed when the application was made. For the benefit of the bar, we call attention to an amendment to Section 443.08, Chapter 21981, Acts of 1943.

The decree is reversed.

BUFORD, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1945: 51947: 11951: 11967: 119452026peak 1945 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Royal Jewelers Co. of Knoxville v. Hake205 S.W.2d 963 (Tenn. 1947)
  2. Fowler v. Hartridge24 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1945)
  3. APPEAL OF MacKENZIE AUTO EQUIPMENT CO.232 P.2d 130 (Idaho 1951)
  4. George v. Unemployment Compensation Commission41 A.2d 465 (Del. Super. Ct. 1945)
  5. The Texas Co. v. Fla. Industrial Commission20 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1945)
  6. Dobyns-Taylor Hardware Co. v. United States278 F. Supp. 538 (E.D. Tenn. 1967)

Most recent

  1. Dobyns-Taylor Hardware Co. v. United States278 F. Supp. 538 (E.D. Tenn. 1967)
  2. APPEAL OF MacKENZIE AUTO EQUIPMENT CO.232 P.2d 130 (Idaho 1951)
  3. Royal Jewelers Co. of Knoxville v. Hake205 S.W.2d 963 (Tenn. 1947)
  4. Fowler v. Hartridge24 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1945)
  5. Packard Clothes Inc. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security61 N.E.2d 528 (Mass. 1945)
  6. The Texas Co. v. Fla. Industrial Commission20 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1945)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list