CHIPPY FURNITURE CO.
v.
BOROCHOFF, ET AL.
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.
Chippy Furniture Co. sued a Georgia-based partnership for breach of a furniture delivery contract. The court dismissed the suit because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants, as service was made on a merchandise broker who was not authorized to receive process on their behalf and the transaction was entirely interstate in nature.
The court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Service on Berson was insufficient because he was not a member of the partnership, not an accredited representative or business agent of the defendants, and the transaction did not constitute doing business in Florida by the defendants.
“Berson, on whom process was served, is not a member of the partnership, nor was he on the date of service. He was and is now merely a merchandise broker acting for the defendants and other concerns outside Florida.”
Establishes that Berson lacked the status necessary to be a valid agent for service of process under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChippy Furniture Co. sued the Borochoff brothers, partners doing business as Southern Wire & Iron Works, for damages from alleged nonperformance of a …
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 Doing Business In Florida cases and more on FLexlaw
Naming as defendants Isador, Charles and Marvin Borochoff, partners doing business as Southern Wire & Iron Works, the plaintiff sued for damages resulting from the alleged nonperformance of a contract for the delivery of furniture — obtaining service of process on April 9, 1951 under section 47.16 F. S. A.1 on one Albert H. Berson, who took the order for the furniture.
Appearing specially, the defendants have moved for an order quashing the service or dismissing the suit because (1) the court does not have jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, and (2) the service of process was insufficient to bind the defendants.
*167Berson testified at a hearing on the motion. It has been made affirmatively to appear that the defendants are all nonresidents of the state of Florida, they have their residences and place of business in Georgia, they have no place of business or property in Florida. Berson, on whom process was served, is not a member of the partnership, nor was he on the date of service.
He was and is now merely a merchandise broker acting for the defendants and other concerns outside Florida. His authority was merely to receive orders and submit them to the defendants for acceptance and shipment, or rejection. He was not, as contended by the plaintiff, a business agent' or accredited representative of the defendants at the time of service.
It has been further made to appear, without contradiction, that the contract upon which this suit is founded came into existence as a result of Berson having taken an order from the plaintiff to be accepted and shipped, or rejected, by the defendants — and the goods shipped in interstate commerce from Georgia to Florida. The transaction was wholly interstate. The alleged contract and the entire transaction on which this suit is founded did not constitute doing business in Florida..
The defendants’ motion to quash service of summons or dismiss the suit is granted, and the cause is dismissed.