WATERMAN BIC-PEN CORPORATION
v.
MANNCRAFT EXHIBITORS SERVICE, INC.
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.
Waterman Bic-Pen Corporation, a New York corporation, sued Manncraft Exhibitors Service for negligence in dismantling a trade show display booth. The defendant moved to stay the action under Florida's foreign corporation statutes, arguing that Waterman's promotional activities in Florida constituted "doing business" in the state, but the court denied the motion, holding that interstate sales with local promotional activity do not require foreign corporation qualification.
The court held that a foreign corporation whose sales are entirely interstate is not required to qualify under Florida corporation laws and may not be subject to a mandatory stay, even if it engages in extensive intrastate promotional activities or maintains employees in the state. The Florida Supreme Court has uniformly held that foreign corporation stay statutes may not constitutionally be applied to bar Florida courts from a non-Florida corporation whose sales are all interstate.
“they may not constitutionally be applied to bar the Florida courts to a non-Florida corporation whose sales are all interstate, however extensive the intrastate activity in promoting or making the interstate sales may be”
Establishes the core holding that local promotional activity does not constitute doing business for foreign corporation qualification purposes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaterman Bic-Pen Corporation, a New York corporation, maintained a display booth at a trade convention in Miami Beach. The company employed salesmen a…
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 Amenability To Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, a New York corporation, brought this action against the defendant, a Florida corporation, to recover damages for alleged negligence in dismantling and reerecting plaintiff’s display booth at a trade convention held at a Miami Beach hotel.
Defendant moves on notice to stay this action under F.S. §§47.43 and 613.04 on the ground that plaintiff is doing business in Florida, but has failed to qualify under the Florida corporation laws.
As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff had a display booth for its articles at a trade convention held in Florida. Defendant’s *111discovery in support of its motion by way of deposition and written interrogatories, also establishes that plaintiff has salesmen and promotional employees based in Florida and that it places its advertising material with local newspapers and television stations. However, the discovery further establishes that plaintiff’s actual sales are by interstate shipment from its Connecticut plant to Florida wholesalers or chain stores.
Nevertheless, defendant urges that plaintiff corporation must be treated as doing business within the meaning of foreign corporation stay statutes F.S. §§47.43 and 613.04 because its promotional activities in Florida in aid of its interstate sales would render it amenable to Florida process under F.S. §47.16 if it were sued here as a defendant, citing in support thereof Bradbery v. Frank L. Savage, Inc., 190 So.2d 183 (4th DCA); Illinois Central R. Co. v. Simari, 191 So.2d 427 (Sup. Ct.). This contention lacks merit because the Supreme Court of Florida has uniformly held in construing the Florida corporation laws and the predecessor stay statutes that they may not constitutionally be applied to bar the Florida courts to a non-Florida corporation whose sales are all interstate, however extensive the intrastate activity in promoting or making the interstate sales may be. Circular Adv. Co. v. Am. Mercantile Co., 63 So. 3; Am. Mercantile Co. v. Circular Adv. Co., 71 So. 607; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Gore, 160 So. 481; Crockin v. Boston Store, Inc., 188 So. 853; Stevens-Davis Co. v. Stock, 193 So. 745; and Schwartz v. Frango Corp., 44 So.2d 292. Accordingly, defendant’s motion should be denied.
For its part, plaintiff filed objections to defendant’s “Further Interrogatories” numbered 22, 23 and 24. These interrogatories seek to elicit details of dates of TV advertising over a Miami station, and whether the advertising appeared simultaneously on a national network. Because the above-cited cases establish, as heretofore noted, that local promotion of interstate sales does not require a foreign corporation to qualify under Florida corporation laws, answers to the interrogatories would be immaterial.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that defendant’s motion to stay is denied, that plaintiff’s objections to interrogatories 22. 23 and 24 are sustained; and it is further ordered that defendant shall plead to the complaint within fifteen days from the date of this order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Simari, 191 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1966)
- Emil Crockin v. The Boston Store of Ft. Myers, Inc., 137 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1939)
- Am. Mercantile Co. v. The Circular Advertising Co., 71 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1916)
- Stevens-Davis Co. v. Otto F. Stock, 141 Fla. 714 (Fla. 1940)
- Bradbery v. Frank L. Savage, Inc., 190 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Gore, 118 Fla. 889 (Fla. 1935)
- Paxton v. Foley Lumber Co., 141 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1940)