The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 17
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 17.20

17.20 Assignment of claims for collection.—

(1) The Chief Financial Officer shall charge the state attorneys with the collection of all claims that are placed in their hands for collection of money or property for the state or any county or special district, or that it otherwise requires them to collect. The charges are evidence of indebtedness of a state attorney against whom any charge is made for the full amount of the claim, until the charges have been collected and paid into the treasury of the state or of the county or special district or the legal remedies of the state have been exhausted, or until the state attorney demonstrates to the Chief Financial Officer that the failure to collect the charges is not due to negligence and the Chief Financial Officer has made a proper entry of satisfaction of the charge against the state attorney.

(2) The Chief Financial Officer may assign the collection of any claim to a collection agent or agents who are registered and in good standing pursuant to chapter 559, if the Chief Financial Officer determines the assignation to be cost-effective. The Chief Financial Officer may authorize the agent or agents to add a fee to the amount to be collected.

(3) Each agency shall be responsible for exercising due diligence in securing full payment of all accounts receivable and other claims due the state.

(a) No later than 120 days after the date on which the account or other claim was due and payable, unless another period is approved by the Chief Financial Officer, and after exhausting other lawful measures available to the agency, each agency shall report the delinquent accounts receivable as directed by the Chief Financial Officer to the appropriate collection agent for further action, excluding those agencies that collect delinquent accounts pursuant to independent statutory authority.

(b) An agency that has delinquent accounts receivable, which the agency considers to be of a nature that assignment to a collection agency would be inappropriate, may request in writing for an exemption for those accounts. The request shall fully explain the nature of the delinquent accounts receivable and the reasons the agency believes such accounts would be precluded from being assigned to a collection agency. The Chief Financial Officer shall disapprove the request in writing unless the agency shows that a demonstrative harm to the state will occur as a result of assignment to a collection agency.

(c) Agencies that have delinquent accounts receivable, which accounts are of such a nature that it would not be appropriate to transfer collection of those delinquent accounts to the Chief Financial Officer within 120 days after the date they are due and payable, may request in writing a different period of time for transfer of collection of such accounts. The request shall fully explain the nature of the delinquent accounts receivable and include a recommendation as to an appropriate period.

(4) Each October 1, each agency shall submit a report to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Financial Officer which includes:

(a) A detailed list and total of all accounts that were referred for collection and the status of such accounts, including the date referred, any amounts collected, and the total that remains uncollected.

(b) A list and total of all delinquent accounts that were not referred to a collection agency, the reasons for not referring those accounts, and the actions taken by the agency to collect.

(c) A list of all accounts or claims, including a description and the total amount of each account or claim, which were written off or waived by the agency for any reason during the prior fiscal year, the reason for being written off, and whether any of those accounts continue to be pursued by a collection agent.

(5) Each December 1, the Chief Financial Officer shall provide to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a report that details the following information for any contracted collection agent:

(a) The amount of claims referred for collection by each agency, cumulatively and annually.

(b) The number of accounts by age and amount.

(c) A listing of those agencies that failed to report known claims to the Chief Financial Officer in a timely manner as prescribed in subsection (3).

(d) The total amount of claims collected, cumulatively and annually.

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any contract providing for the location or collection of unclaimed property, the Chief Financial Officer may authorize the contractor to deduct its fees and expenses for services provided under the contract from the unclaimed property that the contractor has recovered or collected under the contract. The Chief Financial Officer shall annually report to the Governor, President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the total amount collected or recovered by each contractor during the previous fiscal year and the total fees and expenses deducted by each contractor.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 1413, 1863; RS 112; GS 116; RGS 128; CGL 158; ss. 12, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 6, ch. 83-132; s. 62, ch. 95-147; s. 6, ch. 95-312; s. 1, ch. 97-60; s. 34, ch. 2003-261; s. 2, ch. 2010-151; s. 2, ch. 2014-17.

F.S. 17.20 on Google Scholar

F.S. 17.20 on Casetext

Amendments to 17.20

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 17.20

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 17.20.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. KINDLE v. DEJANA, LLC, F. Jr. LLC, 308 F. Supp. 3d 698 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . Alyssa Villanueva Associate - 2 $200.00 31.80 $6,360.00 years experience Olivia Ruiz Paralegal $100.00 17.20 . . .

ODONNELL, On v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (S.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . Proposed Article 17.20 provides that in misdemeanor cases, “Notwithstanding a bail schedule or any standing . . . Article 17.20 would confirm that sheriffs have independent judgment and authority to release misdemeanor . . . basis accords with his authority to accept bail and release misdemeanor defen- . dants under Article 17.20 . . . Pro. art. 17.20; cf. id. art. 17.21 ("BAIL IN FELONY. . . . Pro. arts. 17.20, 17.22); State v. Martin, 833 S.W.2d 129, 133 (Tex. Cr. . . .

A. CHRISTIAN, v. UNITED STATES,, 131 Fed. Cl. 134 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

. . . . § 302-17.20 (“The purpose of the WTA is to protect you from having to use part of your relocation expense . . . does not "cover state taxes, local taxes, Medicare taxes, or Social Security taxes,” 41 C.F.R. § 301— 17.20 . . .

ODONNELL, On v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,, 227 F. Supp. 3d 706 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . requiring the court, judge, magistrate or officer taldng the bail to regulate the amount of bail), art. 17.20 . . .

STRINGFIELD II, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,, 166 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (S.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . P (CALJIC No. 17.20). . . .

QUAD CITIES WATERKEEPER, v. G. BALLEGEER,, 84 F. Supp. 3d 848 (C.D. Ill. 2015)

. . . concerns a party’s legal authority or power to sue or be sued. 4-17 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 17.20 . . .

YATES, MJG- S. MJG- MJG- Ed MJG- MJG- D. LLC W. F. MJG- MJG- J. MJG- J. MJG- LLC MJG- LLC MJG- L. L. F. LLC MJG- S. MJG- J. MJG- MJG- MJG- v. MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE EQUITY, LLC M. L. RBC LLC. K. C. C. S. A. S. N. Jr. O. S. M. A. B. W. III B., 744 F.3d 874 (4th Cir. 2014)

. . . The price of MuniMae shares dropped 46.57%, from $17.20 per share on January 28, to $9.19 per share on . . .

HERNANDEZ, KROONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 110 Fed. Cl. 496 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . cost for putting this work back into the contract is based upon a reasonable cost which approximately $17.20 . . .

In MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE EQUITY, LLC, SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, 876 F. Supp. 2d 616 (D. Md. 2012)

. . . The price of MuniMae shares dropped approximately 47%, from $17.20 per share on January 28, 2008 to $9.19 . . .

CERDA, v. HEDGPETCH, KERN STATE PRISON,, 744 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . See CALJIC No. 17.20; People v. . . .

MAEZ, v. SPRINGS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, a, 268 F.R.D. 391 (D. Colo. 2010)

. . . charged $189.20 for a government certificate . of title fees, the actual cost to file such documents was $17.20 . . .

MASOOD, v. SALEEMI,, 309 F. App'x 150 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.20[1] (3d ed.2008). . . . See id. at § 17.20[4], In addition, capacity does not affect the choice of what substantive law to apply . . . Id. at § 17.20[5]. . . .

In MARTELLARO,, 404 B.R. 548 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2008)

. . . her student loan debts with other general unsecured claims, instead of only the negligible amount of $17.20 . . .

In McCAULEY, 398 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008)

. . . of the Yukon, gap insurance of $500.00, a service contract of $1,995.00, an administrative fee of $17.20 . . .

J. BURKETT, v. CITY OF EL PASO, El, 513 F. Supp. 2d 800 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Proc.Code §§ 17.20; 17.22. . . . El Paso to set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05, 17.20 . . . The Attorney General concluded that "[u]nder Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.20, a City of El Paso . . .

BITTAKIS, v. CITY OF EL PASO, El El J., 480 F. Supp. 2d 895 (W.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Proc.Code §§ 17.20; 17.22. . . . El Paso to set reasonable bail for both misdemeanor and felony arrestees pursuant to articles 17.05, 17.20 . . . The Attorney General concluded that "[ujnder Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.20, a City of El Paso . . .

LANGBECKER, v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP., 476 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . published an earnings warning, which precipitated a substantial drop in its stock price (from $36.46 to $17.20 . . .

Q. OLIBAS, d b a v. GOMEZ,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 721 (W.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . Proc. art. 17.18 (2006) (“sheriff may take the necessary bail bond”) (emphasis added), and id. art. 17.20 . . .

FEDER, v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION E. H. v. A., 429 F.3d 125 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . September 18, EDS’s stock price dropped from a September 18 close of $36.46 to a September 19 close of $17.20 . . .

In UNUMPROVIDENT CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION v. II I, v. I,, 396 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Tenn. 2005)

. . . Complaint at ¶ 128; Bernstein Complaint at ¶ 132); (2) the CorTS Trust II price fell from $22.81 to $17.20 . . .

In ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 226 F.R.D. 559 (E.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . shares plummeted from a closing price of $36.46 per share on September 18, 2002 to a closing price of $17.20 . . .

SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD a s o JT B. V. v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC. v., 391 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . According to the “PACKING DETAILS” section of that invoice, the gross per-case weight of the 175 cases was 17.20 . . .

In ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. ERISA LITIGATION, 224 F.R.D. 613 (E.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . The next day, Plaintiffs allege “EDS’s stock price plummeted over fifty percent to close at $17.20, wiping . . .

In ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. ERISA LITIGATION, 305 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . The next day, Plaintiffs allege “EDS’s stock price plummeted over fifty percent to close at $17.20, wiping . . .

In ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. SECURITIES AND ERISA LITIGATION, 298 F. Supp. 2d 544 (E.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . announcement, EDS shares plummeted from a closing price of $36.46 per share on September 18, 2002 to a $17.20 . . .

In COMPACT DISC MINIMUM ADVERTISED PRICE ANTI- TRUST LITIGATION, 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003)

. . . (The plaintiffs agree with the objectors that the average list price of the 1,960 titles is $17.20.) . . .

U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. TCG OREGON, a H., 31 F. Supp. 2d 828 (D. Or. 1998)

. . . Unbundled Loop Price The arbitrator established an interim price of $17.20 for an unbundled loop. . . .

U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. H., 31 F. Supp. 2d 819 (D. Or. 1998)

. . . Unbundled Loop The arbitrator established an interim price of $17.20 for an unbundled loop. . . .

U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. AT T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC. L. P. a H., 31 F. Supp. 2d 839 (D. Or. 1998)

. . . Unbundled Loop Price The arbitrator established an interim price of $17.20 for an unbundled loop. . . .

T. W. M. W. ENK, v. BROPHY,, 124 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . Parson, 874 F.2d 131, 137 n. 10 (3d Cir.1989); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.20[1], p. 17-87 (3d ed . . .

NEWLIN, v. W. HELMAN, E. ROBINSON, v. B. SMITH, C. GRIFFIN, v. R. HARRIS,, 123 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . the appellate fee an additional 20 percent per month, so that the prison must be instructed to remit $17.20 . . . The upshot is that the district clerk must assess and collect $17.20 from Griffin’s prison trust account . . . , and the prison must be instructed to remit $17.20 per month for another 11 months (after which most . . .

HARVEY HARVEY, INC. v. COUNTY OF CHESTER TRI- COUNTY INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COUNTY OF MERCER PENNSYLVANIA, 68 F.3d 788 (3d Cir. 1995)

. . . in fact took some of its waste to two other facilities in Ohio which charged tipping fees of only $17.20 . . . it is in the Harvey case: the contractual tipping fee was $35 per ton relative to the spot rates of $17.20 . . .

HOUSTON, v. LAFAYETTE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, W., 841 F. Supp. 751 (N.D. Miss. 1993)

. . . 5,398/21.40 754/14 4,644/84 2 4,958/19.70 943/19 4,015/78 3 4,331/ 19.60 2,335/ 54 1,996/ 40 4 5,011/ 17.20 . . .

v., 101 T.C. 1 (T.C. 1993)

. . . Year P’s tax return P’s affirmative claims SSI Fairchild Texon Intera Evans 1977 12.0 19.5 16.4 12.0 17.20 . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, D. C. v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,, 977 F.2d 1493 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

. . . biweekly premiums to be paid by employees with "family-plan” coverage was to be increased from $13.32 to $17.20 . . .

ARIZONANS FOR FAIR REPRESENTATION, v. J. SYMINGTON,, 828 F. Supp. 684 (D. Ariz. 1992)

. . . Indian 1.27% 3.27% 2.45% 0.98% 0.69% 17.20% NH Asian 2.21 % 1.18% 0.95% 1.59% 1.73% 0.62% NH Other 0.08% . . .

BEVERIDGE v. H. LEWIS, 939 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . east of Stearns Wharf, permission for such mooring must be obtained in the manner required by Chapter 17.20 . . .

P. ARCHER, E. L. R. R. V. C. v. UNITED STATES, 18 Cl. Ct. 603 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . Twice that year, ABN gave its employees a $17.20 per week raise. . . . Accordingly, while ABN employees received an increase of approximately $.50 per hour ($17.20 per week . . . Thus, Treasury gave plaintiffs the same $17.20 per week raise in conformity with § 5349(a). . . . Two additional adjustments each of 17.20 per week, were granted to Bureau Engravers during FY 83. . . . The letter also mentions that the second $17.20 per week raise was effective "May 2, 1983.” . . .

SWIN RESOURCE SYSTEMS, INC. v. LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, LYCOMING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT M. P. I., 883 F.2d 245 (3d Cir. 1989)

. . . Lycoming, $13.25 per ton for waste generated within the remaining counties of the 5V2-county area, and $17.20 . . .

In REED, SSN XXX- XX- XXXX SSN XXX- XX- XXXX, 102 B.R. 243 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1989)

. . . In addition, the Trustee asserts expenses for postage and copying in the amount of $17.20 (see Trustee . . . Trustee has provided a breakdown of compensation in the amount of $1,125.00 for attorney’s fees and $17.20 . . . However, the expenses of $17.20 are noncom-pensable since we find that the term “costs” under § 362(h . . .

SECURITIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Co. Co. v. J. CONNOLLY, C., 703 F. Supp. 146 (D. Mass. 1988)

. . . Witter claimants, arbitration yielded 37 percent of total compensatory damages sought, compared with 17.20 . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 18.60 18.28 20.51 21.43 22.96 16.30 13.97 22.40 17.80 26.63 17.06 19.66 29.00 20.83 31.91 16.14 17.95 17.20 . . .

In BRUNER, PARKER, v. BRUNER,, 43 B.R. 143 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1984)

. . . to marry (contractual and, therefore, dischargeable), see Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. 1A, sections 17.20 . . .

In THREE MILE ISLAND LITIGATION, 557 F. Supp. 96 (M.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . Hours John Lyons Investigation & Research 30.6 Law Clerks Pleadings 44.7 Jurisdiction 1.6 Settlement 17.20 . . .

In D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC. HADAR LEASING INTERNATIONAL CO. INC. v. D. H. OVERMYER TELECASTING CO. INC., 23 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982)

. . . Klein, 29 Tr. 2830) 17.20. Back Dated Hadar Invoices. . . .

In SCHNEIDER a k a R. a k a, 15 B.R. 744 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1981)

. . . The Court further finds the chapter 7 trustee’s application for expenses in the amount of $17.20 for . . .

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, C., 626 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1980)

. . . In 1977, dues were $15.70 per month; in 1978, they were $17.20. . . .

GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. OF FLORIDA, 47 Fla. Supp. 155 (Fla. P.S.C. 1978)

. . . 6.95 5.95 III 26.35 22.40 N/A 10.35 8.35 7.20 6.20 IV 27.50 N/A 16.50 10.80 8.70 7.10 6.50 V 28.70 N/A 17.20 . . .

A. ARMOUR, A. v. A. GRADLER, C. T. A. L. A., 448 F. Supp. 741 (W.D. Pa. 1978)

. . . /77 23,400.00 Future loss, at $5,400.00 per year x 31 years reduced to present worth by a factor of 17.20 . . . years $ 4,333.00 Future loss, at $1,000 per year x 31 years reduced to present worth by a factor of 17.20 . . .

R. ATWATER, v. L. ROUDEBUSH,, 452 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Ill. 1976)

. . . . §§ 17.20-17.35 (1976)) and by the United States Civil Service Commission (see C.F.R. §§ 179.101-179.102 . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA L. SHEVIN, v. EXXON CORPORATION, 526 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . . §§ 17.20, 27.10 (1961) (collection of state claims; Fla. . . .

GETTY, v. BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION,, 505 F.2d 1226 (1st Cir. 1974)

. . . Larson, Workmen’s Compensation § 17.20 (1972). . See Metropolitan Coal Co. v. . . .

NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY v. GROUNDS Jr. CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. ASHLAND OIL AND REFINING COMPANY CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY, v. COLUMBIAN FUEL CORPORATION CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION NATIONAL HELIUM CORPORATION, v. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, 393 F. Supp. 949 (D. Kan. 1974)

. . . 1962 13.80 per Mcf 1963 14.30 1964 14.30 1965 14.60 1966 15.10 1967 15.60 1968 15.60 1969 15.90 1970 17.20 . . .

LINDY BROS. BUILDERS, INC. OF PHILADELPHIA, v. AMERICAN RADIATOR STANDARD SANITARY CORP., 382 F. Supp. 999 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . Lerner 17.20 " Howard L. Sehambelan 2.50 " Total 604.65 hours 4. Settlement Harold E. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DeLAUGHTER, 453 F.2d 908 (5th Cir. 1972)

. . . Devitt & Blackmar, 1 Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.20, at 341 (2d ed. 1970). . . .

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, v. WILLIAMS,, 397 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . See 3 Barron & Holtzoff, p. 349 n. 17.20 and pocket supp.; 6A Moore’s Fed.Prac., 2nd ed., H 59.08 [6] . . .

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION v. SUNRAY DX OIL CO., 391 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1968)

. . . did take the unreliability of the temporary prices into consideration when it refused to accept the 17.20 . . .

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, v. GREIF BROTHERS COOPERAGE CORPORATION,, 389 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1968)

. . . the accretions to Tract A-l and lying for the most part to the South of Section 22, containing in all 17.20 . . .

v., 57 Cust. Ct. 585 (Cust. Ct. 1966)

. . . N-400 was sold at $17.20 per gross whereas Mr. . . . collective exhibit 9 contains a copy of the commercial invoice in this entry and indicates that the $17.20 . . . the discrepancy was due to the documents examined in Japan or from the mistaken application of the $17.20 . . .

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, BRISTOL- MYERS COMPANY v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, CHAS. PFIZER CO. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, UPJOHN COMPANY, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1966)

. . . If you really wanted the business, why didn’t you bid $17.20? Mr. Duncan. . . . But if you really wanted it, you could have bid $17.20? Mr. Duncan. Yes. Mr. Dixon. . . .

L. SIMMONS, v. AVISCO, LOCAL TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,, 350 F.2d 1012 (4th Cir. 1965)

. . . in 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure (Wright ed.), § 1302.1 and cases cited at n. 17.20 . . .

CANADA PACKERS, LIMITED, a v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, 342 F.2d 563 (7th Cir. 1965)

. . . the New Mexico origins to the Canadian destinations ($14.60 per ton to Toronto and Welland, Ontario, $17.20 . . . and Welland than those charged ($13.80 in lieu of $14.60), 1200 lower to Montreal ($16.00 in lieu of $17.20 . . .

ABOANDANDOLO, v. VONELLA,, 88 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1956)

. . . and final judgment for the plaintiff was entered in the sum of $25,416.57, with costs in the sum of $17.20 . . .

GOLDBERG v. KRAKOW, 7 Fla. Supp. 170 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1955)

. . . together with her reasonable costs incurred in this suit (hereby assessed and taxed at and in the sum of $17.20 . . .

BAY RIDGE OPERATING CO. INC. v. AARON, 334 U.S. 446 (U.S. 1948)

. . . His statutory excess pay 16X$.45=17.20; total $57.60. . . .

UNITED STATES v. OREGON, 295 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1935)

. . . .; N. 56° E. 17.20 chs.; S. 80° E. 30.00 chs.; S. 60° E. 20.00 chs.; S. 31° E. 34.00 chs.; N. 21° E. . . .

v., 27 B.T.A. 1339 (B.T.A. 1933)

. . . allege error in failing to include in income the interest of $3,422.61 ($3,439.81 less expenses of $17.20 . . .

BROWNE v. THORN ET AL. PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS THORN MAGINNIS, 260 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1922)

. . . and ten seventeen fifteen ” — which is understood to carry a direction to sell one thousand bales at 17.20 . . .

v., 10 Ct. Cust. 228 (C.C.P.A. 1920)

. . . Therein the lead content ran from 17.20 per cent to 38.80 per cent. . . .

BURTON COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 51 Ct. Cl. 362 (Ct. Cl. 1916)

. . . & Co., on which they were paid for a small quantity of material excavated and placed’ amounting to $17.20 . . .

v. Co., 5 Ct. Cust. 398 (C.C.P.A. 1914)

. . . Protest No. 713218: Lead, 17.20; copper, 18.40; iron, 28.00; sulphur, 20.80. . . .

In POTEE BRICK CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY, 179 F. 525 (D. Md. 1910)

. . . bankrupt for the same debt secured by the mortgage, recovered a judgment against him of $5,500 debt and $17.20 . . .

v. v., 51 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1850)

. . . Course if. 88° E. 12.00 Prairie. 17.20 Field (Yeach) fence north and south. 48.20 Left field fence north . . .