Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1956 |
| Citation | 87 So.2d 599 |
| Parties | PACIFIC MILLS, a corporation, Petitioner, v. HILLMAN GARMENT, Inc., a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Broad & Cassel, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Irving M. Woiff, Miami, for respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari the petitioner Pacific Mills, a Massachusetts corporation, which was plaintiff below, seeks review of an order of the Circuit Court which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court of Record sustaining a motion to dismiss petitioner's complaint in an action on a foreign judgment.
The question presented for our consideration is the correctness of the ruling of the lower court that the complaint showed on its face that the court which entered the foreign judgment lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment was therefore unenforceable in Florida.
Pacific Mills, plaintiff below, was a Massachusetts corporation that recovered a judgment against Hillman Garment, Inc., a Florida corporation, in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York. The complaint alleged that an arbitration proceeding was had between the parties in accord with Article 84 of the Civil Practice Act of New York, and that the judgment was entered by the New York court confirming the award agreed upon by the arbitrators. Attached to the complaint is an authenticated copy of the judgment and a copy of a written exhibit purporting to show that the defendant Hillman participated in the arbitration proceeding.
The complaint also alleged that the defendant participated in the arbitration proceeding and submitted a counterclaim therein. By motion to dismiss, the respondent Hillman, which was defendant below, attacked the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The Judge of the Civil Court of Record of Dade County granted the motion to dismiss for the asserted reason that the complaint showed that the New York court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment, and that it was apparent that the plaintiff below could not further amend its complaint to plead the basic requirements of jurisdiction in the New York court. Judgment was thereupon entered for the defendant Hillman.
On appeal the Circuit Court of Dade County affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court of Record. Petition for certiorari seeks review of this order, contending that it obviously constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
Petitioner contends that the writ of certiorari should be granted for the reason that under our Rules, it is necessary only to plead the ultimate fact that a judgment was recovered in a sister state and moreover that the complaint actually showed that the New York court had jurisdiction.
Respondent contends that the complaint revealed on its face that the New York court lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment was therefore void.
30 F.S.A. Rule 1.9(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
A casual examination of this Rule reveals that in suing on a judgment of a court of a sister state, it is unnecessary to allege more than the actual judgment. Lack of jurisdiction in a foreign court is a defensive matter which should be set out in the answer. However, if the plaintiff undertakes to allege in his complaint the jurisdictional facts, then the sufficiency of the jurisdictional allegations may be tested by a motion to dismiss. This is so for the obvious reason that a party is bound by the allegations of its complaint and if such allegations reveal that the court of a sister state lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment sued upon, such allegations may then be fatal to the complaint in the Florida court when assaulted by a motion to dismiss. See First National Bank of Cresson, Pa., v. Brown, 119 Fla. 761, 162 So. 142.
We revert to an examination of the complaint before us to determine whether it shows on its face that the New York Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. The trial judge was of the view that it did. Counsel for respondent contends that it did. The briefs fail to reveal any precedents or authorities to sustain this conclusion. Inasmuch as the complaint alleged that the judgment was recovered in accord with provisions of Article 84 of the Civil Practice Act of New York, it thereby placed in issue the provisions of this statute and under these circumstances we are justified in taking judicial notice of the statute of a sister state. Section 92.031, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., and Kingston v. Quimby, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 455.
The pertinent provision of the New York statute, Civil Practice Act, is Article 84, Section 1450, which reads in part as follows:
* * *'
Petitioner contended below that by participating in the arbitration proceeding in the State of New York, the respondent subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the New York courts to the extent that the New York Practice Act provides for the entry of the judgment on the award of the arbitrators if application for such judgment is made within one year after the filing of the award pursuant to notice served on the adverse party. Copy of the judgment attached to the complaint recited that such notice was given. See Article 84, Section 1461, Civil Practice Act of New York.
We are next confronted with the question as to whether these provisions of the New York Civil Practice Act so comport with our notions of due process as to accord to the New York judgment full faith and credit under our Federal Constitution, art. 4, § 1. An axiom of due process is that a judgment in personam entered by the court of a sister state without proper personal service or voluntary appearance of the judgment-defendant is a nullity and may be attacked on the ground that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bland v. Green Acres Group, L.L.C.
...agreement is invalid as constituting an attempt to oust the legally constituted courts of their jurisdiction); Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment Inc., 87 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1956) (contract to arbitrate not enforceable by injunction). Generally, this view was based on the notion that such agreem......
-
Pierce v. J.W. Charles-Bush Securities, Inc.
...had earlier adopted the English common law view that arbitration agreements could not be enforced. See, e.g., Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Inc., 87 So.2d 599 (Fla.1956) (agreement to arbitrate could not be specifically enforced by injunction). Generally, this view was based on the noti......
-
Neal v. State ex rel. Neal, C-314
...custody of the child and is thereby precluded from disputing the authority which she engaged to settle her rights. Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 599. Appellant's so-called 'challenge' of the Mississippi habeas corpus decree rests entirely on the premise that her answe......
-
Corp. Salvadorena de Calzado v. Injection Footwear
...so comport with our notions of due process as to accord to the El Salvadorean judgment comity recognition? Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Inc., 87 So.2d 599, 602 (Fla. 1965). (Docket # 157 at page 28.) Preliminarily, the Special Master concluded that Paragraph Seven (7) of the contract b......