ATLANTIC & GULF GROCERY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE AETNA MILLS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Atlantic & Gulf Grocery Company sued Aetna Mills Company for breach of a flour delivery contract. Aetna Mills challenged the trial court's jurisdiction over it as a Kansas corporation, arguing that service of summons on a flour broker in Florida was improper and did not confer jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that it lacked jurisdiction.
The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Aetna Mills Company. Although there was some evidence that Wiggs may have acted as an agent of the defendant, the jury found in favor of the defendant on the jurisdictional question, and this finding is supported by ample evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal.
“that summons herein was served upon one, W. A. Wiggs, as the resident business agent of this defendant, in the County of Duval, State of Florida, and who was at the time of service upon him a mercantile broker, and that the said defendant corporation was organized and existing, and now exists only under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas, and has always had its office and place of business in the County of Sumner and State of Kansas, and nowhere else”
Establishes the defendant's jurisdictional argument that it was a Kansas corporation with no presence in Florida and that service was on a broker, not an authorized agent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtlantic & Gulf Grocery Company brought an action for damages against Aetna Mills Company, a Kansas corporation, for alleged breach of contract to del…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Question Of Fact For Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— Plaintiff in error brought an action for damages against the Aetna Mills Company for alleged breach of contract to deliver flour. The defendant filed the following plea, im:
“Comes now the Aetna Mills Company, a corporation, appearing specially, in proper person by its duly authorized officers, and for the sole purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the above court, and not otherwise, files this, its plea, and says:
“That summons herein was served upon one, W.
A. Wiggs, as the resident business agent of this defendant, in the County of Duval, State of Florida, and who was at the time of service upon him a mercantile broker, and that the said defendant corporation was organized and existing,, and now exists only under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas, and has always had its office and place of business in the County of Sumner and State of Kansas, and nowhere else, and that said defendant has never been domiciled within the State of Florida, and has never had any office or place of business, or any agent or agency in the County of Duval, or elsewhere in the State of Florida, and that said defendant corporation did not at the time of the attempted, service of the summons in said cause, or at any other time, carry on or conduct any business, or have any office, officer or agent for the transaction of business in the State of Florida and that no person at the time of said attempted service was authorized to conduct any business for, or represent said defendant corporation in the State of Florida, in any manner whatsoever, and that the said W.
A. Wiggs,. had no connection of any kind with said defendant corporation, except as a flour broker to take orders for flour and send them to this defendant at Wellington in the State of Kansas, and that at the time of the attempted service of said summons upon the said defendant corporation by leaving a true copy thereof with the said W.
A. Wiggs, he was acting solely in the capacity of broker, as aforesaid, and not otherwise on this defendant’s behalf.
“And the said defendant says that the said Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Duval County never acquired any jurisdiction in said cause of this defendant by the said attempted service of said summons upon the said W. A. Wiggs, and has never acquired, and has no jurisdiction of the said defendant in the said cause, and this the said defendant is ready to verify.
“Wherefore, it prays judgment if the court here will take cognizance of the -action aforesaid.”
Issue was joined on this plea and trial had thereon. Verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant and plaintiff took writ of error. There was positive testimony by competent witnesses that the defendant foreign corporation had no place of business and no agent in Florida, and had not transacted any business in this State, and that W.
A. Wiggs was a broker and had never been an agent of the defendant corporation. There is also evidence tending to show that Wiggs acted as the agent of the defendant corporation within the jurisdiction of the court; but the question of fact was by fair charges submitted to the jury and settled by them in favor of the defendant, and there is ample evidence to sustain the finding, therefore it will not be disturbed. Ho harmful error of procedure appearing, the judgment is affirmed. ,.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. Mason Prods. Co., 67 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1953)…e 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. Staite of Washington, supra; 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 i…
-
George A. Hormel & Co. v. Ackman, 117 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1934)…bring it within the reasoning employed in the cited case. See also 14A C. J. 1380-1381; 12 R. C. L. 119; and Cone v. Tuscaloosa Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. 891. his holding is not in conflict with the case of Atlantic & Gulf Grocery Co., v. Aetna Mills Co., 77 Fla. 113, 80 So. 738, wherein this court held that service- upon - a -resident [*423] broker does not give jurisdiction over a foreign corporation for which the broker had never been an agent. ■ We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of…
-
Teeby Realty Corp. v. Gasway Corp., 181 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…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] [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 i…