Mason v. Mason Products Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1953 |
| Citation | 67 So.2d 762 |
| Parties | MASON et al. v. MASON PRODUCTS CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Will O. Murrell, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Milam, McIlvaine, Carroll & Wattles, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This appeal presents two questions for determination. The first is whether under the facts disclosed by the record the foreign corporation defendant, hereafter called appellee, was 'doing business' in the State of Florida to the extent which would make it subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. The second question is whether service of process on a person who took orders in his spare time for the products of the foreign corporation, was sufficient to bind the corporation under Section 47.17, Fla.Stats.1951, F.S.A. Section 47.16 thereof also is cited in appellants' brief. But that Section prescribes a mode of substituted service upon the Secretary of State binding upon foreign corporations and others under specified conditions. The service contested here was made upon a person 'As Business Agent' of defendant; therefore the said Section, 47.16, Fla.Stats.1951, F.S.A., is not applicable to this case.
We have carefully examined the record and facts disclosed therein. The salesman upon whom process was served was regularly employed by a stranger to appellee. One day the salesman observed an advertisement of appellee and answered it. Appellee sent him a catalogue and a form letter and booklet telling him about appellee's product and how to place orders. His compensation was the down payment set forth in the catalogue which, in the event of a sale, he retained. The order was then sent to appellee in a foreign state, was subject to its acceptance, and if accepted the product was shipped to the customer C. O. D. The saleman knew nothing about the appellee, had no contract with it, and outside of members of his family had taken orders from only two persons, one of whom was appellant.
The record shows no relationship of the character which would create either a legal or moral duty on the part of the salesman to report and properly handle a summons served on him as agent of the appellee. To hold that under such circumstances service on such person is sufficient to give the courts of this state jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the appellee offends every principle of justice and due process. After all, it is fundamental that due process requires notice and a fair opportunity to be heard, but this principle has been circumscribed by the admonition that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delray Beach Aviation Corp. v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.
...The Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida Court had jurisdiction over the nonresident owners. In the case of Mason v. Mason Products Co. (1953), 67 So.2d 762, the Florida Supreme Court held that the relationship of a particular salesman to a foreign corporation was not such as to cons......
-
Delray Beach Aviation Corp. v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 20878.
...on the part of the agent to report and properly handle a summons served on him as agent of" the foreign corporation. Mason v. Mason Prod. Co., Fla., 1953, 67 So.2d 762, 763. This principle is followed by numerous courts. In Fiat Motor Co. v. Alabama Imported Cars, Inc., 1961, 110 U.S.App. D......
-
State ex rel. Guardian Credit Indem. Corp. v. Harrison
...Although it cannot be a controlling factor because service in this case was made upon the Secretary of State, cf. Mason v. Mason Products, Inc., Fla., 67 So.2d 762, it is perhaps worth observing that it is unrealistic to think of these 'brokers' as other than commission salesmen, as the spe......
- State v. Eason