JAMES LAKE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE LUCAYAN BEACH HOTEL COMPANY, LIMITED, A BAHAMIAN CORPORATION, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed an order quashing service of process against a Bahamian hotel corporation, holding that the defendant's advertising, entertainment of travel agents, and maintenance of a business office in Florida constituted "engaging in or carrying on a business" sufficient to subject it to Florida's substituted service of process statute.
The court held that the defendant's activities in Florida—including extensive advertising through a hired firm, entertainment of travel agents at a maintained apartment, and operation of a business office—constituted actual business activity in the state that went beyond mere solicitation of business, thereby subjecting the foreign corporation to Florida's substituted service of process.
“The determinative question is whether the appellee was, "engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in the state," within the meaning of § 47.16(1) Fla. Stat., F.S.A. This phrase has been given a broad application by the Supreme Court of Florida.”
Establishes the legal standard for subjecting foreign corporations to substituted service of process in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Lucayan Beach Hotel Company, a Bahamian corporation, owned and operated the Lucayan Beach Hotel in the Bahamas. In South Florida, the company empl…
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 Solicitation Of Business cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is from an order quashing service of process in a common-law suit. The attempted service was pursuant to § 47.16 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. and § 47.30 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The complaint is based upon an alleged breach of an employment contract. The defendant, appellee, is a Bahamian corporation with its principle place of business in Freeport, Grand Bahama. The business of the defendant is the ownership and operation of the Lucayan Beach Hotel in the Bahamas.
Discovery disclosed that in South Florida the defendant utilized the services of an advertising firm which carried on an extensive advertising program. The defendant maintained an apartment in Miami Beach where it entertained travel agents for the purpose of producing business through their offices. It further maintained an office in Palm Beach, Florida to which general business correspondence could be addressed and would be answered. No further use of this office was established.
The determinative question is whether the appellee was, “engaging] in, or carrying] on a business or business venture in the state,” within the meaning of § 47.16(1) Fla. Stat., F.S.A. This phrase has been given a broad application by the Supreme Court of Florida. See State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619. This construction has been followed by the District Courts of Appeal. See Oxby v. Zmustowski, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 186; Continental Copper & Steel Industries v. “Red” Cornelius, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 40; Woodring v. Crown Engineering Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 816; Steel Joist Institute, Inc. v. J. H. Mann III, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 625 [opinion filed 1/22/65.]
It is true that the mere solicitation of business is not sufficient to subject a foreign corporation to substituted service of process. Green v. Chicago Burlington and Quincy R. R., 205 U.S. 530, 27 S.Ct. 595, 51 L.Ed. 916. In accord MacInnes v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, 257 F.2d 832 (2nd Cir.1958). However, we hold that this record goes beyond the mere solicitation of business through an agent and shows actual business activity carried on in this State even though that business *262was mainly directed toward the procurement of customers for its hotel. Because of this fact this case is within the ambit of the cases first cited. Accordingly, the order quashing service is reversed.
Reversed.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority holding in this case. See MacInnes v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, C.A. 2 (1958) 257 F.2d 832.
HORTON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority holding in this case. See MacInnes v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, C.A. 2 (1958) 257 F. 2d 832.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Green v. Chicago, 205 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1907)
- State ex rel. Weber et ux. v. Register, 67 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1953)
- Cont'l Copper & Steel Indus., Inc. v. E. C. "RED" Cornelius, Inc., 104 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Woodring v. Crown Eng'g Co., 141 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- John T. Oxley and his wife v. Zmistowski, 128 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Harriett MacINNES and Malcolm D. MacInnes v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 257 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1958)
- Steel Joist Inst., Inc. v. J. H. Mann, III, Inc., 171 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)