MILTON LAND & INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
OUR HOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Milton Land & Investment Company obtained a default judgment against Our Home Life Insurance Company after allegedly serving it with summons. The insurer moved to vacate the judgment as void, claiming improper service. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the vacation, holding that the service did not comply with statutory requirements for serving corporations.
The court affirmed the vacation of the judgment. The service was improper because the sheriff's return did not show that superior officers of the corporation were absent before serving inferior agents, as required by statute. The judgment was therefore void and properly vacated. The order vacating the void judgment is a final adjudication distinguishable from orders merely setting aside defaults to allow further pleading.
“It is uniformly held under such statutes that a return showing service upon an inferior officer-, or agent of a corporation in order to bind the corporation, must show the absence of all officers of a superior class designated in the statute as those upon whom' service shall be had, before resort is had to service upon one of an inferior class. The absence of all members of a superior class is a condition precedent to the validity of service upon a member of an inferior class.”
Establishes the core rule that service on inferior corporate agents requires showing absence of superior officers; this is a condition precedent to valid service.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 25, 1919, a summons was served on W. H. Milton and Carnee Rimbell, identified as agents of Our Home Life Insurance Company in Jackson Cou…
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 Service Of Process On Corporations cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In an action of assumpsit brought by the land company, a corporation, against the life insurance company, a corporation, the return of service made on the summons September 25, 1919, is as follows:
“The within summons came to hand on the 25th day of September, 1919, and was executed in Jackson County, Florida, on the 25th day of September, 1919, by delivering a true copy thereof to W. H. Milton & Carnee Rim-bell as agents of Our Home Life Insurance Company, the within named defendant.
“A. J. LEWIS, Sheriff.”
A default for failure to appear was entered by the Clerk against the defendant corporation. Subsequently in term time a verdict and judgment were rendered against the defendant. After the adjournment of the court for the term the defendant, specially appearing, moved the court to vacate the judgment and to stay execution and “all proceedings for the enforcement of the supposed judgment” on grounds going to the validity of the service of summons and the judgment rendered thereon, the defendant not appearing in the cause prior to the making of the motion to vacate the asserted void judgment. The court ordered that the “motion be and the same is hereby granted and the judgment entered in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated and execution and all proceedings for the enforcement of said judgment stayed.”
A writ of error was taken by the plaintiff below to the order above quoted vacating the judgment on grounds that it is void.
In Stuart v. Butts, 78 Fla. 657, 83 South. Rep. 606, it was held that “an order of a Circuit Judge, vacating and setting aside a default and final judgment and allowing the defendant further time in which to plead, simply opens up the case for further proceedings, and is not' a 'final judgment’ from which writ of error may be taken.”
The order in that case set aside a default and final judgment, upon motion duly made within the time allowed by Section 1424, General Statutes, Í906, for the purpose of allowing further time for the' defendant to plead. That was not a final judgment to support a writ of error under the statute. Sec. 1691, Gen. Stats., 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914.
In this case, as in Einstein v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342, 17 South. Rep. 563, the order vacated a final judgment upon a motion alleging the judgment to be void, which motion was made after the time allowed by the statute for making applications to set aside default and final judgments for the purpose of allowing the defendant further time in which to plead. The order in this case is a final adjudication of an application to vacate an alleged void judgment and to stay the execution of such judgment. It is not an order made pursuant to the statute setting aside a default and final judgment to allow further time for the defendant to plead: See 3 C. J. 467; 2 Ency. Pl. & Pa. 109. Where a defendant does not appear in a cause it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to see that proper service of legal process was duly made upon the defendant to give the court jurisdiction of the defendant in the cause. If legal service is not made and the defendant does not appear in the cause, the judgment may be void. If void the judgment may be vacated on due application.
Section 1406, General Statutes, 1906, as amended by Chap. 7752, Acts of 1918, provides:
“Sec. 1406 upon a private corporation. — Process against any corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:
“1. Upon the President or Vice-President or other head of the corporation. In the absence of such head:
“2. Upon the' Cashier, or Treasurer, or Secretary, or General Manager; or, in the absence of all of the above:
“3. Upon any Director of such company; or, in the absence of all of the above :
“4. Upon any Officer or Business Agent, resident in the State of Florida.
“5. If a Foreign Corporation shall have none of the foregoing officers or agents in this State, service may be made upon any agent transacting business for it in this State.
‘.‘Sec. 2. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby, repealed.
“Sec. 3. That this Act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
“Approved Dec. 7, 1918.” Sec. 2600, Revised General Statutes of 1920.
“It is uniformly held under such statutes that a return showing service upon an inferior officer-, or agent of a corporation in order to bind the corporation, must show the absence of all officers of a superior class designated in the statute as those upon whom' service shall be had, before resort is had to service upon one of an inferior class. The absence of all members of a superior class is a condition precedent to the validity of service upon a member of an inferior class. This is the clear and explicit language of the statute, and courts can not ignore the expressed intention of the Legislature.” Drew Lumber Co. v. Walter, 15 Fla. 252, text 254, 31 South. Rep. 244.
In this case the sheriff’s return shows the statute was not complied with in making service of summons. Consequently the court had no jurisdiction of the defendant and the judgment being for that reason void, it was properly vacated.
Affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
Presumptions in favor of the validity of a judgment do not prevail against the record showing that jurisdiction of a defendant had not been acquired as provided by law and such defendant had not appeared in the cause.
The'judgment having been held to be void and properly vacated because the defendant had not appeared in the cause and the return on the process did not show a service as required by law, the cause now stands for appropriate procedure to be had therein.
Behearing denied.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)…timony in causes as to which the court has general jurisdiction. Statutory regulations as to service of process relate to the acquisition of jurisdiction of the parties litigant and must be observed. See Milton L. & Inv. Co. v. Our Home L. Ins. Co., 81 Fla. 227, 87 South. Rep. 636. It is clear that if the court had jurisdiction of the defendant and of the subject-matter with authority to render a decree in the cause, a failure to comply with the statute regulating the method of taking testimony and making…
-
Space Coast Credit Union v. THE First, 467 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…l be had, before resort is had to service upon one of an inferior class. If this requirement is not met, a court’s jurisdiction is not perfected, and any judgment entered thereon is void. See Milton Land and Investment Co. v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 81 Fla. 227, 87 So. 686 (1921) (return of service on mere agent of corporation without showing absence of officers is ineffectual to prove proper service of process and the resultant judgment is void for want of jurisdiction). Because the process server in this…
-
Golden Gate Dev. Co. v. Ritchie, 140 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1939)…s State, service may be made upon any agent transacting business for it in this State.” Counsel for appellant cites the case of Drew Lumber Co. v. Walter, 45 Fla. 252, 34 So. 244; Milton Land & Investment Co. v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 81 Fla. 227, 87 So. 636. Likewise an affidavit on the part of the alleged officer upon whom process was filed in the cause and is, viz.: “J. A. Aigeer, first being sworn, says that in the Fall of the year 1933, he delivered to J. H. Reardon, as president of St. Lucie Rive…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sons v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1895)
- Stuart v. Butts, 78 Fla. 657 (Fla. 1920)