Teeby Realty Corp. v. Gasway Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Teeby Realty Corp. v. Gasway Corp.

181 So. 2d 31, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3608

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1965

DocketNo. 65-474

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 So. 2d 31 (Teeby Realty Corp. v. Gasway Corp.) 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

Teeby Realty Corp. v. Gasway Corp., 181 So. 2d 31, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3608 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the propriety of an order of a trial court dismissing a cause of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the appellee. The question was a purported service of process upon a foreign corporation, pursuant to Ch. 47, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

By appropriate pleadings, the defendant in the trial Court raised the question of whether or not it had sufficient contacts within the State of Florida to subject it to substituted service of process under the aforesaid statute. As has been said before, each of these cases must turn upon their own facts. See: Mason v. Mason Products Co., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 762; Toffel v. Baugher, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 321; G & M Restaurants Corp. v. Tropical Music Service, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 556. In the Mason v. Mason Products Co. case, supra, the following is found:

* * * * * *

“Each case of this kind must rest on its own bottom for the simple reason that whether service is valid depends on what the facts are. There is no way to lay down a general principle applicable to all cases. See International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, supra [32]*32[326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057]; Atlantic & Gulf Grocery Co. v. Aetna Mills Co., 77 Fla. 113, 80 So. 738; and see Note (1938) 113 A.L.R. 9, containing an exhaustive annotation on the subject of who may be served to bind a foreign corporation. See also the recent case of State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla., 67 So.2d 619, discussing what is ‘doing business’ in a State.”

******

The appellant has failed to make it appear from the record that the trial judge committed error. Therefore, we affirm his action in dismissing the cause.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the propriety of an order of a trial court dismissing a cause of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the appellee. The question was a purported service of process upon a foreign corporation, pursuant to Ch. 47, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

By appropriate pleadings, the defendant in the trial Court raised the question of whether or not it had sufficient contacts within the State of Florida to subject it to substituted service of process under the aforesaid statute. As has been said before, each of these cases must turn upon their own facts. See: Mason v. Mason Products Co., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 762; Toffel v. Baugher, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 321; G & M Restaurants Corp. v. Tropical Music Service, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 556. In the Mason v. Mason Products Co. case, supra, the following is found:

* * * * * *

“Each case of this kind must rest on its own bottom for the simple reason that whether service is valid depends on what the facts are. There is no way to lay down a general principle applicable to all cases. See International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, supra [32]*32[326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057]; Atlantic & Gulf Grocery Co. v. Aetna Mills Co., 77 Fla. 113, 80 So. 738; and see Note (1938) 113 A.L.R. 9, containing an exhaustive annotation on the subject of who may be served to bind a foreign corporation. See also the recent case of State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla., 67 So.2d 619, discussing what is ‘doing business’ in a State.”

******

The appellant has failed to make it appear from the record that the trial judge committed error. Therefore, we affirm his action in dismissing the cause.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 2d 31, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teeby-realty-corp-v-gasway-corp-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack