Compuguide Corp. v. Sachs
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--22,72--22 |
| Parties | COMPUGUIDE CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Appellant, v. Louis L. SACHS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bernard B. Weksler, Miami, for appellant.
Fromberg, Fromberg & Roth and L. Joseph Hoffman, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
This interlocutory appeal is from an order denying appellant Compuguide Corporation's motion to dismiss on the ground that attempted service of process under F.S.A. § 48.181 was not effective. The controlling question of fact was whether appellant had engaged in or carried on a business or business venture in this state. We reverse.
The trial judge's decision on the question of fact carries with it a presumption of correctness. DeVaney v. Rumsch, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 904. Upon appeal this court must determine whether the evidentiary matters before the trial judge support the determination made in the trial court. Appellant contends that the facts before the trial court affirmatively show that appellee has not carried its burden of showing facts which would make the appellant amenable to process under F.S.A. § 48.181, Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 594. A restatement of all the evidentiary material before the trial court would unduly lengthen this opinion. Briefly stated, in the light most favorable to the trial court, the facts that we think are controlling are as follows: (1) the suit was for specific performance against a foreign corporation to require the purchase of all the stock of a Florida corporation in which the appellees are the stockholders; (2) the contract to purchase, by an exchange of stock, was negotiated partly in Florida and partly in New Jersey; (3) the written contract to purchase was made when all parties were present in New Jersey; (4) the contract included an agreement of the New Jersey Corporation to employ two of the appellees; (5) the anticipated closing of the sale in Florida was never held; (6) appellants employed attorneys and accountants in Florida preparatory to the closing; (7) the president of the New Jersey corporation ordered some of the Florida corporation's products on behalf of a separate corporate entity; (8) the president of the New Jersey corporation recommended that the Florida corporation participate in a Housewares Trade Fair in Chicago.
We hold that a contract to purchase all of the stock of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oriental Imports and Exports, Inc. v. Maduro & Curiel's Bank, N.V.
...that the nonresident's investment was not sufficient contact with Florida to satisfy the long-arm statute. In Compuguide Corp. v. Sachs, 259 So.2d 513 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972), a nonresident corporation's contract, which was neither entered into nor executed in Florida, to purchase all the st......
-
Groome v. Feyh
...product in Florida. In seeking dismissal of this action, the defendants rely primarily on the Florida case of Compuguide Corp. v. Sachs, 259 So.2d 513 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972), in which the court found in substantial activity to warrant exercise of personal jurisdiction under the "doing busin......
-
Martin Blumenthal Associates, Inc. v. Dinsmore, 73--1217
...this court is presented with a contract situation wherein the contract was neither entered into nor performed in Florida. See Compuguide Corp. v. Sachs, supra; Hamilton Brothers, Inc. v. Peterson, 445 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1971). Appellees further argue that even if the contract were formed i......
-
Spencer Boat Co., Inc. v. Liutermoza
...to long-arm jurisdiction under the statute. See Lyster v. Round, supra (citing DeVaney v. Rumsch, supra); Compuguide Corporation v. Sachs, 259 So.2d 513 (Fla.App.1972). There was no such intent in the present The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded with dire......