Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co.

470 So. 2d 792, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1432, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1985

DocketNos. 84-2644, 84-2645

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 470 So. 2d 792 (Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co.) 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

Key Caisee Corp. v. Seashore Shell Co., 470 So. 2d 792, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1432, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found that service upon an employee of an attorney was valid service on the appellant corporation. The attorney was the designated resident agent of the appellant corporation and his office had been designated as the corporate office. The employee was served at the attorney’s office between the hours of 10 A.M. to 12 noon on a normal working day.¹

The trial court also appointed a receiver to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of a partnership. Among oth[793]*793er things, it empowered the receiver to arrange financing in order to continue the operation of the partnership and preserve its principal asset in order to accomplish an orderly winding up of the partnership affairs. We find no error in either ruling and affirm. Karafilakis v. Stavroulakis, 112 Fla. 303, 150 So. 277 (1933); Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (1855); Arison Shipping Company v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 259 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Sec. §§ 48.081(3), 48.091, Fla.Stat. (1983). Compare State v. Tedder, 103 Fla. 1083, 138 So. 643 (1932).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found that service upon an employee of an attorney was valid service on the appellant corporation. The attorney was the designated resident agent of the appellant corporation and his office had been designated as the corporate office. The employee was served at the attorney’s office between the hours of 10 A.M. to 12 noon on a normal working day.¹

The trial court also appointed a receiver to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of a partnership. Among oth[793]*793er things, it empowered the receiver to arrange financing in order to continue the operation of the partnership and preserve its principal asset in order to accomplish an orderly winding up of the partnership affairs. We find no error in either ruling and affirm. Karafilakis v. Stavroulakis, 112 Fla. 303, 150 So. 277 (1933); Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (1855); Arison Shipping Company v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 259 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Sec. §§ 48.081(3), 48.091, Fla.Stat. (1983). Compare State v. Tedder, 103 Fla. 1083, 138 So. 643 (1932).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 So. 2d 792, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1432, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/key-caisee-corp-v-seashore-shell-co-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack