Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. SWD Investments, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. SWD Investments, Inc.

343 So. 2d 933, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1977

DocketNos. 76-1030 and 76-1031

StatusPublished

This text of 343 So. 2d 933 (Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. SWD Investments, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. SWD Investments, Inc., 343 So. 2d 933, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

CARROLL, Associate Judge.

The appellant, a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida without having qualified to do so, filed an action in Dade County against SWD Investments Inc., a corporation “residing” in Duval County and not elsewhere, Stockton, What-ley, Davin & Company, with its principal office in Duval county and an office in Dade county, and General American Oil Company of Texas, maintaining offices in Duval and Dade counties. By its action the plaintiff sought certain relief against defendants grounded on a claimed breach of an alleged oral contract for the purchase by plaintiff of certain corporate stock.

On motions of the defendants for dismissal on the ground of improper venue, and on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from maintaining the action by virtue of Section 607.354 Florida Statutes 1975 because not qualified to do business in Florida, the trial court dismissed the action. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal and a plenary appeal, which were consolidated here.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been made to appear. In the circumstances relating to the defendants, the trial court’s holding of improper venue was correct, and is affirmed, Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So.2d 538 (Fla.1957); King v. King, 188 So.2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). Defendants’ motions to dismiss under the above cited statute, filed and brought on for ruling, when the plaintiff corporation shown to have been doing business in Florida had not qualified therefor, entitled the defendants to the order of dismissal which was entered. See 1825 Collins Ave. Corporation v. Rudnick, 67 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 1953).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CARROLL, Associate Judge.

The appellant, a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida without having qualified to do so, filed an action in Dade County against SWD Investments Inc., a corporation “residing” in Duval County and not elsewhere, Stockton, What-ley, Davin & Company, with its principal office in Duval county and an office in Dade county, and General American Oil Company of Texas, maintaining offices in Duval and Dade counties. By its action the plaintiff sought certain relief against defendants grounded on a claimed breach of an alleged oral contract for the purchase by plaintiff of certain corporate stock.

On motions of the defendants for dismissal on the ground of improper venue, and on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from maintaining the action by virtue of Section 607.354 Florida Statutes 1975 because not qualified to do business in Florida, the trial court dismissed the action. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal and a plenary appeal, which were consolidated here.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been made to appear. In the circumstances relating to the defendants, the trial court’s holding of improper venue was correct, and is affirmed, Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So.2d 538 (Fla.1957); King v. King, 188 So.2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). Defendants’ motions to dismiss under the above cited statute, filed and brought on for ruling, when the plaintiff corporation shown to have been doing business in Florida had not qualified therefor, entitled the defendants to the order of dismissal which was entered. See 1825 Collins Ave. Corporation v. Rudnick, 67 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 1953).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 So. 2d 933, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadillac-fairview-corp-v-swd-investments-inc-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack