Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co.

121 So. 2d 694, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1960

DocketNo. 59-660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 So. 2d 694 (Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & 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

Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 121 So. 2d 694, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals the judgment of dismissal which sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The question to be determined was whether the defendant was transacting business in the State of Florida within the meaning of § 47.171, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The trial judge had presented to him the testimony of only two witnesses upon which to make his finding. One was Mr. Taylor, the agent served, and the other was Mr. Ellison, a pharmacist, who testified as to an instance in which he had done business with the defendant company through Mr. Taylor.

The trial judge concluded that the substance of the testimony was that the agents of the defendant were employed solely to go into drug stores, doctors’ offices and hospitals, and talk to them favorably about the defendant’s products. If orders were tendered, these agents would forward the orders to defendant’s home office. Upon this basis, the trial judge found that the defendant was not transacting business in Florida within the meaning of the statute. The court’s finding being based upon a reasonable interpretation of the testimony before it, and no error of law having been demonstrated, the judgment is

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur. CARROLL, CHAS., J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals the judgment of dismissal which sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The question to be determined was whether the defendant was transacting business in the State of Florida within the meaning of § 47.171, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The trial judge had presented to him the testimony of only two witnesses upon which to make his finding. One was Mr. Taylor, the agent served, and the other was Mr. Ellison, a pharmacist, who testified as to an instance in which he had done business with the defendant company through Mr. Taylor.

The trial judge concluded that the substance of the testimony was that the agents of the defendant were employed solely to go into drug stores, doctors’ offices and hospitals, and talk to them favorably about the defendant’s products. If orders were tendered, these agents would forward the orders to defendant’s home office. Upon this basis, the trial judge found that the defendant was not transacting business in Florida within the meaning of the statute. The court’s finding being based upon a reasonable interpretation of the testimony before it, and no error of law having been demonstrated, the judgment is

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur. CARROLL, CHAS., J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 2d 694, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zirin-v-charles-pfizer-co-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack