Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hormel Co. v. Ackman, (1934)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida Number:  Visitors: 10
Judges: BROWN, J. —
Attorneys: Watson Pasco Brown, for Plaintiffs in Error; John M. Coe, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Sep. 17, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The controlling question here relates to the legality vel non of the service of summons ad respondendum upon the defendant in the court below, a nonresident corporation, upon which service judgment by default and final judgment were rendered against the defendant, plaintiff in error here, in an action in tort for damages. The sheriff's return showed service upon one James C. Waseman, "being then and there a business agent of the defendant * * * resident in the State of Florida; and there being t
More

I think that the decision in this case should rest upon the proposition that the corporation was engaged in doing business in this State under authority of the case of International Harvester Co. Kentucky 234, 21 S. 579, 58 Sec. 1479. Under authority of that case, Normel Company, the Alabama Corporation, was doing business in this State at the time of the attempted service of process on Waseman. It was engaged in a continuous course of business in this State. The manager of the corporation testified that it had an agent in Pensacola continuously from March to November, 1931, and still has an agent there. By that course of business the corporation manifested its presence within this State and Waseman's authority consisted in more than mere solicitation, he had authority to receive payment in part for the goods delivered. In which circumstance he was a business agent of the corporation, residence in this State, within the meaning of Sec. 4251, C. G. L., Florida.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer