Angust 1t, 1975
Mr. aRbert 1. Watson, Diretor
amet Metate Skvlate.
sthlumet rktKAa Water lmett Distriot
P. O. M.a 4S7
breoavillle, 71arida 3512
Res Lsake Corltem Drmudows 15-011
Moreipt iso k~dYawled of your letter of August 7, 1975,
eummuing the above matter.
It seg pImioa. basd several rXMaasoO that we do
sot bhve toe aebtas a pmLt f the Corps of io-St
or theu 8Ute Depaxrat of Bi OamMaB lIMglaS for
the drmei~up of Lake Carltm. NHovr, all o rf our atf s
ad pmogap ars .5o.ot to rerriew brt t6e DeparmAt of Ba-
virzsmia al, mulattIi, as Vas tire beft e Vader the D R.
Your very truly,
Myreo 0. Gibbons
os8 Mr. atit Musel-n
-I -- -- i
646 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said X company was in any manner distributing trading stamps
for retail issuance by others, nor are they redeeming said stamps
as we commonly understand the term "redeem," or as it is defined
by Webster's new collegiate dictionary as meaning "to regain pos-
session of by repurchase." (Emphasis supplied.)
In conclusion, insofar as concerns any business exchanging
trading stamps in the manner indicated in the foregoing hypotheti.
cal situation, the above question is answered in the negative.
060-127-August 2, 1960
TRAVEL EXPENSE-PURCHASE OF TRAVEL INSURANCE
FROM PUBLIC FUNDS NOT AUTHORIZED-112.061, F. S.
To: W. G. Hendricks, Business Manager, Board of Control,
May the board of control pay from public funds for
travel insurance for personnel on any official travel that
takes them away from their official headquarters?
The board of control is not authorized to pay personal travel
expenses except as authorized by the legislature.
-The legislature has provided for the payment of per diem
t and traveling expenses of state officers and employees in 112.061,
F. S. This act does not authorize payment of travel insurance
premiums in addition to the designated amount of per diem allowed
to reimburse the employee for his personal expenses. Travel in-
surance would be solely a personal benefit and not in the nature
of an essential incidental expense incurred" for the benefit of the
state rather than the employee.
Your question is therefore answered in the negative.
j 060-128-August 3, 1960
E ~BANKS AND BANKING
CONSTRUCTION OF 659.17(1), F. S., LIMITATION ON
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE TO DIRECTOR OR OFFICERS
a OF BANKING INSTITUTION MAKING LOAN
,To: Ray E. Green, State Comptroller, Tallahassee
Are loans to partnerships, associations or corpora-
tions, in which bank directors or officers are interested,
either directly or indirectly, subject to the limitations of
i 659.17(1)(a), F. S.?
Said 659.17, F. S., is a part of the Florida banking code of
1953 (Ch. 28016, 1953), and appears to have been derived pri-
marily from former 653.04, 653.18, 655.17 and 655.20, F. S.
Although not referred to in its title or otherwise, said Ch. 28016.
1953 clearly appears to have been a consolidation, extension, revi-
sion and codification of the then existing statutes and laws relating
to and regulating banks and trust companies in this state and.
their business. By comparison of said 659.17, F. S., or the Florida
banking code of 1953, with 653.04, 653.18, 655.17 and 655.20,
former Florida Statutes, and other sections and parts of the
said former Florida Statutes and laws, it becomes evident that