George A. Hormel & Co. v. Ackman
Decision Date | 17 September 1934 |
Citation | 117 Fla. 419,158 So. 171 |
Parties | GEORGE A. HORMEL & CO. et al. v. ACKMAN. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1934.
Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; L. L. Fabisinski, Judge.
Action by F. W. Ackman against George A. Hormel & Company. From a judgment for plaintiff on defendant's bond to release a levy of execution, defendant and surety bring error.
Affirmed.
Watson & Pasco & Brown, of Pensacola, for plaintiffs in error.
John M Coe, of Pensacola, for defendant in error.
The controlling question here relates to the legality vel non of the service of summons ad respondendum upon the defendant in the court below, a nonresident corporation, upon which service judgment by default and final judgment were rendered against the defendant, plaintiff in error here, in an action in tort for damages. The sheriff's return showed service upon one James C. Waseman, 'being then and there a business agent of the defendant -----, resident in the State of Florida; and there being then and there no President Vice-President, or other head of such corporation, nor Cashier, nor Treasurer, nor Secretary, nor General Manager nor Director thereof, in the county of Escambia, or in the State of Florida.' This return, on its face, complied with section 4251, Comp. Gen. Laws. The service of summons upon Waseman was not brought to defendant's attention, and it did not appear. After judgment was rendered against it, one of its trucks, being driven in Escambia county, Fla., was levied upon under an execution issued on said judgment. The defendant filed its affidavit of illegality under the statute (sections 4515-4516, Comp. Gen. Laws) and gave bond to release the levy. The plaintiff filed motion to quash the affidavit, and the court, after hearing testimony on the issues raised by the affidavit and motion, sustained the motion to quash the affidavit of illegality, to which ruling the defendant excepted. Judgment under the statute was entered against the defendant and the surety on its bond; whereupon defendant took writ of error, and the evidence advanced on the trial is brought here by bill of exceptions.
The statutory remedy adopted by plaintiff in error was an available one to raise the question here presented, on the facts of this case. McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, 15 So. 231; Houstoun v. Bradford, 35 Fla. 490, 17 So. 664; In re Shapiro Holding Corporation (D. C.) 15 F. (2d) 601. See also Bartlett v. Cohn, 97 Fla. 256, 120 So. 357.
The affidavit of illegality, among other things, alleged that Waseman, the person upon whom the summons was served, was not the business agent of the defendant, resident in the state of Florida, as set forth in the sheriff's return, and that the judgment against it, and the execution issued thereon, were therefore illegal and void, having been obtained without due process. This was put in issue by the motion interposed by defendant in error.
The testimony of the manager of plaintiff in error's plant in Mobile, Ala., was to the effect that said James C. Waseman was 'employed' by plaintiff in error in the state of Florida at the time stated in the sheriff's return. Witness said: On cross-examination the witness testified that: This was practically all the material evidence on the point in question. The conclusion of the lower court that this testimony proved that Waseman was plaintiff in error's 'business agent, resident in the State of Florida,' within the meaning of section 4251, C. G. L., and as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International Shoe Co. v. State
... ... Royce, all of Seattle, for ... appellant ... Smith ... Troy and George W. Wilkins, both of Olympia, for respondents ... JEFFERS, ... Justice ... Lamont v ... Moss Cigar Co., 218 Ill.App. 435; George A. Hormel & ... Co. v. Ackman, 117 Fla. 419, 158 So. 171, where in ... addition to soliciting ... ...
-
Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines
...Com. of Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579, 34 S.Ct. 944, 58 L.Ed. 1479, and that the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, in Hormel & Co. v. Ackman, 117 Fla. 419, 158 So. 171, fully supports its contention that there was jurisdiction here, appellant further insists that appellee and the district ......
- White v. Town of Inglis
-
State ex rel. Schmidt v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County
... ... A.L.R. 88; Cheli v. Cudahy Bros., 260 Mich. 496, 245 ... N.W. 503; George A. Hormel & Co. v. Ackman, 117 Fla ... 419, 158 So. 171; Atlantic Greyhound Lines v. Metz, 4 ... ...