![E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Aquamar S.A.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Aquamar S.A.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Aquamar S.A.
881 SO.2D 1, 2004.FL.0001380 , 29 FLA. L. WEEKLY D811
-
- 4,00 kr
-
- 4,00 kr
Publisher Description
Michael Snapp Bonding Agency, Inc. (Snapp) appeals from the circuit courts denial of its motion to set aside a forfeiture judgment entered by the Clerk of Court in Orange County, Florida. At the hearing on the motion below, the state attorney representing Orange County stipulated that all of the conditions set forth in section 903.26(5) and (8) had occurred. However, he asserted that because paper work (a receipt or letter, etc.) had not been placed in the file acknowledging costs of transportation were paid by Snapp, the Clerk of Court acted properly in failing to discharge the bond, and in entering a forfeiture judgment against Snapp. We reverse.