HERMAN B. MEISELMAN, IRA S. MEISELMAN AND L. A. POSTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
MASON H. MCKNIGHT, JR., APPELLEE
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.
This case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning the proper service of process on individual defendants who were officers and stockholders of a corporation. The court reversed the lower court's order, finding that service on the corporation's resident agent was insufficient for the individual defendants.
No, the service of process on the corporation's resident agent was not valid for the individual appellants. The statutes pertaining to service of process on nonresident individuals were not complied with.
“Appellants' motion to dismiss on the ground that personal service on the individual defendants could not be had by service upon the corporation's resident agent, was denied.”
Describes the motion filed by the appellants and the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, officers and stockholders of M & S Shopping Centers, Inc., were sued individually along with the corporation. Service of process was made …
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.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, denying appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because of failure of proper service of process.
The appellants were all officers and/or stockholders of M & S Shopping Centers, Inc. of Florida, a corporation. Suit was instituted against said corporation and the appellants herein, individually. Service of process was made upon a Mr. C. H. Deavers, resident agent for M & S Shopping Centers, Inc. of Florida, allegedly also as resident agent for the appellants.
Appellants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that personal service on the individual defendants could not be had by service upon the corporation’s resident agent, was denied. Hence this appeal.
\¥e have examined the Florida Statutes pertaining to service of process on nonresident individuals, and particularly section 48.071 and section 48.181 and chapter 49, and after examining the record before us, we must conclude that the statutes have not been complied with in effecting service *438upon the appellants, and their motion to dismiss as to them should have been granted.
That portion of the order appealed from is hereby reversed and said cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wittenberg v. Tilford, 330 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ervice of process, engaged in a business within this State. Therefore, the order appealed must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to quash the attempt of service of process upon the appellant. Cf. Meiselman v. McKnight, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 437. Reversed and remanded.…