Amphicar Corp. of America v. Gregstad Distributing Corp., 61-668
| Decision Date | 01 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-668,61-668 |
| Citation | 138 So.2d 383 |
| Parties | AMPHICAR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. GREGSTAD DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Schwarz & Cohen and Jack M. Bernard, Miami, for appellant.
Mitchell M. Goldman, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant, Amphicar Corporation of America, a New York corporation, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order relating to jurisdiction over the person. The order denying motion to dismiss is affirmed. The purpose of this opinion is to state the reasons for this decision since our research discloses no case in this jurisdiction in which the same or a similar fact situation was considered.
The complaint alleges that defendant-appellant breached a written contract. The defendant, Amphicar, moved to dismiss stating as ground therefor:
'1. That the defendant does not transact and had never transacted business in the State of Florida.
'2. That the defendant does not maintain any office, agent, or other representative, for the regular transaction of business in the State of Florida.
'3. That this is an action in personam.
The motion was argued before the court upon the complaint, interrogatories and answers, and the affidavit of defendant's president filed in support of the motion. The following facts were made to appear. Amphicar is an automotive manufacturer. The president of the corporation came into the State of Florida upon corporate business. He was attending a foreign and sports car show where the corporation exhibited its product and sought business for the corporation. The corporation was served with process by service upon the president while he was in the state in order to be present at the exhibit.
The appellee points out that we are here dealing with service upon the president of the corporation pursuant to Section 47.17, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.: 'Process against any corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served: (1) Upon the president or vicepresident, or other head of the corporation; * * *.' The appellee urges that this is not 'service upon any agent' as provided by Section 47.171. Nevertheless we think the burden is upon one who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the court over a foreign corporation not qualified to transact business in Florida to show: (1) that the corporation is doing business in this state and (2) that the cause of action upon which it sues is one which arose out of the activities of the foreign corporation within this state. Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 594.
We have examined Apgar v. Altonna Glass Co., 92 N.J.Eq. 352, 113 A. 593 and Brandow v. Murray & Tregurtha Corporation, 203 App.Div. 47, 196 N.Y.S. 293 relied upon by the appellant. Although service of process upon an officer of a corporation while in attendance at a convention was involved in the Apgar case, supra, any discussion therein relating to the proposition with which we are concerned loses its persuasive force due to the fact that the basis of the decision was that the contract sued upon had been executed in another state.
The Brandow decision is in point and held that service of process on an assistant-treasurer of a foreign corporation who was in New York in charge of the corporation's exhibit at a motorboat show was not binding on the corporation. The court reasoned that under New York law service of process upon an officer of a foreign corporation temporarily within the state would not confer jurisdiction over the corporation absent a showing that the corporation was doing business within the state, not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and certainty.
We have declined to follow the rationale of this decision because we believe that it runs contra to the course of the Florida law. See State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619. We conclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuttle v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd.
...Firkel, 391 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Lyons v. Town of Lake Park, 153 So.2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Amphicar Corp. v. Gregstad Distributing Corp., 138 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Broward County Port Authority v. F.M. Rule & Co., 119 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). The rule is the same in......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Arguello
...(Seine), France, v. Superior Court In and For Sacramento County, Cal.App., 25 Cal.Rptr. 530, 531; Amphicar Corp. of America v. Gregstad Distributing Corp., Fla.App., 138 So.2d 383, 384, 385; Lone Star Motor Import, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp., 5 Cir., 288 F.2d 69, 72; and Jarrard Motors, Inc......
-
Phillips v. Hooker Chemical Corporation
...activities of Hooker within Florida. Zirin v. Charles Pfizer and Co., Inc., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 594; Amphicar Corporation of America v. Gregstad Distrib. Corp., Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 383; Fawcett Publications Inc. v. Rand, Fla. App.1962, 144 So.2d 513; Young Spring and Wire Corp. v. Smith......
-
Youngblood v. Citrus Associates of New York Cotton Exchange, Inc.
...Goffer v. Weston, 217 So.2d 896 (Fla.App.1969); Manus v. Manus, 193 So.2d 236 (Fla.App.1966); Amphicar Corporation of America v. Gregstad Distributing Corp., 138 So.2d 383 (Fla.App.1962). See also Bayitch, Conflict of Laws, Florida 1968--69, 24 U.Miami L.Rev. 434, 450--53 (1970). Contra, H.......