Lake v. Lucayan Beach Hotel Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-1009,64-1009 |
| Parties | James LAKE, Appellant, v. The LUCAYAN BEACH HOTEL COMPANY, Limited, a Bahamian corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelner & Lewis, Miami, for appellant.
Kaplan & Shapiro, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
This interlocutory appeal is from an order quashing service of process in a commonlaw suit. The attempted service was pursuant to § 47.16 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. and § 47.30 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The complaint is based upon an alleged breach of an employment contract. The defendant, appellee, is a Bahamian corporation with its principle place of business in Freeport, Grand Bahama. The business of the defendant is the ownership and operation of the Lucayan Beach Hotel in the Bahamas.
Discovery disclosed that in South Florida the defendant utilized the services of an advertising firm which carried on an extensive advertising program. The defendant maintained an apartment in Miami Beach where it entertained travel agents for the purpose of producing business through their offices. It further maintained an office in Palm Beach, Florida to which general business correspondence could be addressed and would be answered. No further use of this office was established.
The determinative question is whether the appellee was, 'engag[ing] in, or carry[ing] on a business or business venture in the state,' within the meaning of § 47.16(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This phrase has been given a broad application by the Supreme Court of Florida. See State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619. This construction has been followed by the District Courts of Appeal. See Oxby v. Zmustowski, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 186; Continental Copper & Steel Industries v. 'Red' Cornelius, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 40; Woodring v. Crown Engineering Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 816; Steel Joist Institute, Inc. v. J. H. Mann III, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 625 [opinion filed 1/22/65.]
It is true that the mere solicitation of business is not sufficient to subject a foreign corporation to substituted service of process. Green v. Chicago Burlington and Quincy R. R., 205 U.S. 530, 27 S.Ct. 595, 51 L.Ed. 916. In accord MacInnes v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, 257 F.2d 832 (2nd Cir.1958). However, we hold that this record goes beyond the mere solicitation of business through an agent and shows actual business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harry Rich Corporation v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
...of activity than is required for "doing business." State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla., 67 So.2d 619 (1963); Lake v. Lucayan Beach Hotel Co., Fla.App., 172 So.2d 260 (1965); Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., Fla.App., 200 So.2d 564, 565 (1967); Continen......
-
Simari v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., G-155
...Inc. v. J. H. Mann, III, Inc., 171 So.2d 625 (1965), and that of the Third District Court of Appeal in Lake v. Lucayan Beach Hotel Company, Limited, 172 So.2d 260 (1960). Probably the most persuasive authority supporting the appellants' contentions in the present appeal is the landmark case......
-
Phillips v. Hooker Chemical Corporation
...Indemnity Corp. v. Harrison, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 371. The only recent Florida case that seemingly is astray is Lake v. Lucayan Beach Hotel Company, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 260. The court there, apparently content to rely on Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 205 U.S. 530, 27 S.......
-
Reader's Digest Ass'n v. State ex rel. Connor
...Hotel Company; Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand; Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Brown; and Talcott v. Midnight Publishing Corporation. 7 In Lucayan, the Third District Court of Appeal, citing Federal decisions, made the observation that 'It is true that the mere solicitation of business is......