ROME INSURANCE COMPANY, A GEORGIA CORPORATION, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. H. CORBETT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the use of constructive service by publication to notify non-resident corporations in an equity suit seeking to impound a fraudulent fund in Hamilton County, rejecting the defendants' argument that such service is improper because the relief sought is in personam rather than in rem.
Constructive service by publication is valid and proper to notify non-residents of pending equity suits, regardless of whether the ultimate relief sought is characterized as in personam or in rem. The statute authorizing constructive service applies broadly to all suits in equity and is not limited by considerations of whether the court will ultimately have power to enter a particular type of decree.
“The purpose of the statute authorizing constructive service by publication is to notify non-residents 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 non-resident to quash this notice”
Establishes the core purpose and validity of constructive service by publication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill was filed in Hamilton County Circuit Court against local defendants and non-resident corporations to impound a fund allegedly arising from a fr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
A bill was filed in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County against local defendants and also certain non-resident 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 non-resident corporations appeared specially to quash the service upon the theory that the sole relief prayed was in personam, and that therefore the statute authorizing constructive service by publication does not apply. This motion having been denied these non-residents 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 non-residents, and we are not to assume upon the face of the bill that the Circuit Court will enter an unauthorized decree; and we have not before us any such question of jurisdiction as was involved in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. The purpose of the statute authorizing constructive service by publication is to notify non-residents - 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 non-resident to quash this notice; he has his right if not waived, to object should the court thereafter commit an error against him.
Our constructive service statute is broad enough io apply to any suit in equity pending in our Circuit Courts, and as has been said in Kilpatrick v. Post, 53 N. J. Eq. 591, text 597, 32 Atl. Rep. 267, cannot be confined in its operation to the cases where the court might make final decree or judgment. Further that court says: “It was not intended, that the question of the power to enter the ultimate decree or judgment should enter into the question of the right to give notice of the suit to a nonresident, or that this question of jurisdiction should be settled on a motion to discharge the order of publication. The complainant is entitled to have the question of jurisdiction settled by a final decree.”
We are not to be understood as holding that the court might not quash a service by publication, if the bill upon its face showed that it was clearly a common law cause of action, and that the resort to the equity side of the court was a subterfuge; the bill before us does not present that case.
The order is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ortell v. Ortell, 91 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1926)…ance for that purpose alone, the right to review such interlocutory order by separate appeal is conferred by Section 3169, Rev. Gen. Stats, of 1920, and the taking of such an appeal does not operate as a general appearance. Rome Ins. Co. v. Corbett, 66 Fla. 438, 63 So. 833; Bank of Jasper v. First National Bank, 358 U. S. 112, 66 Law Ed. 490; 4 C. J. 1347. [*60] For the error pointed out, the interlocutory order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded. Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield,…
-
Reybine v. Lisel E. Kruse, 128 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1937)…Davis, J. We think the order appealed from should be affirmed. The case of Rome Insurance Co. v. Corbett, 66 Fla. 438, 63 Sou. Rep. 833, holds that our constructive service statute is broad enough to apply to any suit in equity pending in our Circuit Courts. The decision just cited has been approved and followed as applied to a non-resident banking corporation not…
-
Mills v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 495 (Fla. 1936)…for constructive service of process against such corporate officers when they are shown to be nonresidents and incapable of being served Otherwise. See: Broward Estates Corp. v. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 366, 112 Sou. Rep. 64; Rome Ins. Co. v. Corbett, 66 Fla. 438, 63 Sou. Rep. 833. The holding in Balian v. The Wekiwa Ranch, 97 Fla. 180, 122 Sou. Rep. 559, is not in conflict with this view because one of the objects of the bill here brought is to establish the status of complainants below as equitable owners…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (U.S. 1877)