Rome Ins. Co. v. Corbett
| Citation | 66 Fla. 438,63 So. 833 |
| Parties | ROME INS. CO. et al. v. CORBETT. |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1913 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Mallory F. Horne, Judge.
Bill by J. H. Corbett against the Rome Insurance Company, a Georgia corporation, and others. From denial of motion to quash constructive service, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
When the statute providing for constructive service by publication in equity has been complied with, the court upon motion to quash the service need not pass upon the power to enter the ultimate decree in the cause.
COUNSEL Kay & Doggett, of Jacksonville, for appellants.
S. S Sandford, of Jasper, and Carter & McCollum, of Jacksonville for appellee.
A bill was filed in the circuit court for Hamilton county against local defendants, and also certain nonresident corporations seeking to impound a fund in that county arising out of an alleged fraudulent transaction consummated in that county. Constructive service, in perfect accordance with the statute, was had by publication, and the nonresident corporations appeared specially to quash the service, upon the theory that the sole relief prayed was in personam, and that therfore the statute authorizing constructive service by publication does not apply. This motion having been denied, these nonresidents have sued out what they term a special appeal.
It may well be that this appeal so operates as a general appearance in the circuit court as to render the question before us a moot one, but the appellee does not ask us to so hold, and it appears that this is but a test case, upon the decision of which many other cases in that court are depending.
The bill confines its prayer to an adjudication of the fund sought to be impounded, and does not pray for a general personal decree against these nonresidents, and we are not to assume upon the face of the bill that the circuit court will enter an unauthorized decree; nor we have not before us any such question of jurisdiction as was involved in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565.
The purpose of the statute authorizing constructive service by publication is to notify nonresidents of the pending suit so that they may, if they care to do so, come into the case, and if the statute be followed, there is no right in the nonresident to quash this notice; he has his right, if not waived, to object...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Wilder Mfg. Co.
... ... The Supreme Court of Florida sustained the lower court in refusing to quash the service (Rome Insurance Co. v. Corbett, 66 Fla. 438, 63 So. 833), and the lower court afterward entered the ... ...
-
Ortell v. Ortell
... ... Stats. 1920, and the taking of such an appeal does not ... operate as a general appearance. Rome Ins. Co. v ... Corbett, 63 So. 833, 66 Fla. 438; Bank of Jasper v ... First National Bank, 42 ... ...
-
Reybine v. Kruse
... ... We ... think the order appealed from should be affirmed. The case of ... Rome Insurance Co. v. Corbett, 66 Fla. 438, 63 So ... 833, holds that our constructive service statute ... ...
-
Bank of Jasper v. First Nat Bank of Rome, Ga First Nat Bank of Jasper, Fla v. State Bank of Rome, Ga Same v. First Nat Bank of Rome, Ga Bank of Jasper v. State Bank of Rome, Ga
...to object should the court thereafter commit an error against him'; and it affirmed the order of the lower court. Rome Insurance Co. et al. v. Corbett, 66 Fla. 438, 63 South. The three Rome corporations took no further part in the suits in the state courts. But in the Circuit Court a decree......