Mills v. Shipp & Head, Inc.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | DAVIS, Justice. |
| Citation | 171 So. 535,126 Fla. 495 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1936 |
| Parties | MILLS et al. v. SHIPP & HEAD, Inc. |
171 So. 535
126 Fla. 495
MILLS et al.
v.
SHIPP & HEAD, Inc.
Florida Supreme Court, Division A.
December 11, 1936
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1937.
Suit by Shipp & Head, Incorporated, a Florida corporation, against Frederick Leon Mills, Herbert Stephen Mills, Hayden Robert Mills, Ralph Joseph Mills, and another. From an order denying a motion to quash service of publication, and to vacate order of publication, the named defendants appeal.
Affirmed and remanded with directions. [126 Fla. 495] Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, judge.
COUNSEL
Shutts & Bowen, Crate D. Bowen, and Charles A. Carroll, all of Miami, for appellants.
W. H. Burwell and Shipp, Evans & Kline, all of Miami, for appellee.
OPINION
DAVIS, Justice.
This is a special and limited appeal in chancery taken by four nonresident defendants from an order of the circuit court of Dade county denying appellants' motion to quash service by publication on them and to vacate the order of publication. See Rorick v. Stilwell, 101 Fla. 4, 133 So. 609.
The suit is one in which certain individuals, namely, Frederick Leon Mills, Herbert Stephen Mills, Hayden Robert Mills, and Ralph Joseph Mills, residents of Cook county, Ill., were joined as defendants in a suit instituted in the court below principally against a Florida corporation, Mills Development Corporation, as the chief object of the relief prayed for.
At the time of the institution of the suit, an order for publication was entered based on an affidavit appended to the bill. Within the time required for publication of the order of constructive service, the individual defendants (appellants here) filed their special appearance and motion to quash the order of publication and to quash the attempted service. The motion was supported by proofs in the form of affidavits to which counter affidavits were filed by complainant below. After the chancellor denied the motion by which appellants attacked the jurisdiction of the court over their persons, appellants filed no appearance or pleading in the cause, but did take this special appeal and gave supersedeas bond to make the same effective as a stay of the proceedings below. A companion appeal in the same case by the codefendant corporation has been considered and decided in connection with the disposition of this appeal. The opinion in the companion appeals sets forth the exact [171 So. 536] nature of the controversy. See Mills Development Corp....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gribbel v. Henderson
...1099; 13 Am.Jur. 475 et seq.; Mills Dev. Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 490, 171 So. 533; Mills v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 495, 171 [151 Fla. 719] So. 535; Taylor v. Standard Gas Co., 306 U.S. 307, 618, 59 S.Ct. 543, 83 L.Ed. 669; Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 107 F......
-
Mills Development Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc.
...Tampa & J. R. Co. v. Harrison, 55 Fla. 810, 46 So. 592. The notice of lis pendens was an appropriate incident to the bill in view of [171 So. 535] the relief sought which affects the properties and transactions of a Florida corporation whose affairs are subject to judicial supervision p......
-
Mills Development Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc.
...Corporation et al. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 490, 171 So. 533, and second appeal, Mills et al. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 495, 171 So. 535. The second appeal was special and limited to an interlocutory decree denying appellant's motion to quash the service by publication ......
-
Gribbel v. Henderson
...1099; 13 Am.Jur. 475 et seq.; Mills Dev. Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 490, 171 So. 533; Mills v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 495, 171 [151 Fla. 719] So. 535; Taylor v. Standard Gas Co., 306 U.S. 307, 618, 59 S.Ct. 543, 83 L.Ed. 669; Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 107 F......
-
Mills Development Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc.
...Tampa & J. R. Co. v. Harrison, 55 Fla. 810, 46 So. 592. The notice of lis pendens was an appropriate incident to the bill in view of [171 So. 535] the relief sought which affects the properties and transactions of a Florida corporation whose affairs are subject to judicial supervision p......
-
Mills Development Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc.
...Corporation et al. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 490, 171 So. 533, and second appeal, Mills et al. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 495, 171 So. 535. The second appeal was special and limited to an interlocutory decree denying appellant's motion to quash the service by publication ......