Conway v. Spence
| Decision Date | 31 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-722,59-722 |
| Citation | 119 So.2d 426 |
| Parties | J. F. CONWAY, Individually, and J. F. Conway, doing business as Conway Trucking Company, Appellants, v. William D. SPENCE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward M. Stein and Morehead, Forrest, Gotthardt & Greenberg, Miami, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and Robert G. Young, Miami, for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal in a common law action from an order rejecting the defendants' challenge of jurisdiction over them. 1
The defendants were non-residents. The complaint was one for damages for personal injuries received in an automobile accident, for which substituted service on the non-resident defendants was allowed. 2
The appellants, who were the defendants below, raise two points. They contend that service was not effected under the statute, asserting that two requirements were not met. First, that the provision for them to be given notice of service on the Florida Secretary of State was not complied with. Second, that summons served on the Secretary of State was not returned as and within the time provided for in the statute.
The record discloses that the alias summons relied upon was issued December 31, 1951; and plaintiff's counsel mailed the summons to the Secretary of State. On January 2, 1952, plaintiff's counsel forwarded to the defendants in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the amended complaint and of the summons which had been issued. At that time the summons had not been served. Service of the summons was effected the following day, January 3, 1952, when the Secretary of State accepted service. 3
Under the applicable rule compelling strict construction of, and substantial compliance with the statute for substituted service on non-residents, as such statute is in derogation of common law rights, the required substantial compliance leaves no room for dispensing with the directive provisions which are set out in the statute as the steps necessary to be taken to perfect service. State ex rel. Palmer v. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123, 111 So. 242; Cherry v. Heffernan, 132 Fla. 386, 182 So. 427; McGee v. McGee, 156 Fla. 346, 22 So.2d 788; Ogden v. Ogden, 159 Fla. 604, 33 So.2d 870, 875; Napoleon B. Broward Drain. Dist. v. Certain Lands, etc., 160 Fla. 120, 33 So.2d 716; Gallant v. McKinney, D.C.S.D.Fla.1952, 104 F.Supp. 277; 72 C.J.S. Process § 43; 3 Fla.Jur., Automobiles, etc. $ 98; 25 Fla.Jur., Process, § 23.
We must reject the appellee's contention that mailing a copy of the complaint and of the summons to the non-resident defendants amounted to giving them 'notice of such service.' The notice which the statute requires, is one which will impart to the non-resident defendant the information that service of such process has been made on the Florida Secretary of State. In the absence of the required notice to them, the defendants were left with no certainty as to when they should answer to avoid a default, or, for that matter, as to whether any service of that summons was made or would be made on the Secretary of State. Therefore, we must uphold appellants' contention that the forwarding to them, as non-residents, of copies of the summons before it was served on the Secretary of State, with no notice as to the fact of service, was not a substantial compliance with the statutory requirement for 'notice of such survice' of process on the Secretary of State. Cherry v. Heffernan, supra, 132 Fla. 386, 183 So. 427; Bond v. Golden, 10 Cir.1959, 273 F.2d 265; State ex rel. Stevens v. Grimm, 192 Wis. 601, 213 N.W. 475. See Dusminski v. Ladenheim, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1942, 43 F.Supp. 139; Bucholz v. Hutton, D.C.Mont.1957, 153 F.Supp. 62, 66-67; Alopari v. O'Leary, E.D.Pa.1957, 154 F.Supp. 78; Brenner v. Margolies, D.C.Mun.App.1953, 102 A.2d 300; 61 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 502e(2).
We hold, therefore, for the reason stated, 4 the order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is reversed, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital Bank of Miami v. Levy
...its directive provisions, which are "necessary steps." Atlas Van Lines v. Rossmoore, 271 So.2d 31 (Fla.App.1972). See Conway v. Spence, 119 So.2d 426 (Fla.App.1960); Young Spring, etc., Corp. v. Smith, 176 So.2d 903, 905 (Fla.1965). We approve the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ......
-
Ferlita v. State, 78-1587
...room for dispensing with the directive provisions which are set out in a statute as the steps necessary to be taken." Conway v. Spence, 119 So.2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Moreover, we think that even more literal adherence is required when a statute spells out the steps to be taken before th......
-
Wilson v. Milligan, 3095
...must be strictly construed and that it must not be applied to persons who are not clearly within its purview. Conway v. Spence, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 426; Warner v. Maddox, W.D.Va.1946, 68 F.Supp. 27. Upon the above authorities, we therefore hold that in order for a defendant to be amenab......
-
Lydick v. Smith, s. 41472
...notice of something which has not yet been done. See, State ex rel. Stevens v. Grimm, 192 Wis. 601, 213 N.W. 475 (1927); Conway v. Spence, 119 So.2d 426 (Fla.App., 1960). Section 25-530(7), R.R.S.1943, clearly requires that the plaintiff give the defendant notice of service upon the Secreta......