MURPHY & JORDAN, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Murphy & Jordan and individual officers appealed an order denying their motion to quash service of process. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that non-resident defendants summoned while attending depositions as witnesses are immune from service of process, and that service on a corporate officer other than the president violated Florida's service statute.
Non-residents are immune from service of process while attending court proceedings as witnesses for a reasonable time before and after. The exception to immunity requires identity of both parties and issues; here, lacking party identity since the witnesses testified as corporate officers, not individuals, immunity applies. Additionally, service on Murphy & Jordan entities was improper because it was made on William Murphy as an officer rather than the president.
[1] Witnesses and suitors attending court outside their jurisdiction of residence are immune from service of process while attending court and for a reasonable time before an…
[2] The exception to the immunity rule for witnesses and suitors requires both identity of parties and identity of issues.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is well established in Florida that witnesses and suitors in attendance in court outside of the territorial jurisdiction of their residence are immune from service of process while attending court and for a reasonable time before and after going to court and in returning to their homes.”
Establishes the foundational rule of witness immunity from 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 intelligenceInsurance Company of North America sued Murphy & Jordan entities and individuals including Thomas Jordan and William Murphy. While Jordan and Murphy w…
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.
Defendant-appellants take this interlocutory appeal to review the lower court’s order denying defendants’ motion to quash process and service of process.
Plaintiff Insurance Company of North America filed an amended complaint against, among others, Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of Florida, Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New York, Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New Jersey, Thomas Jordan, and William Murphy. A summons was served upon Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of Florida. Thereafter, plaintiffs renoticed the depositions of Thomas Jordan, as president of Murphy & Jordan, Inc., a Florida corporation, and William Murphy, as secretary of Murphy & Jordan, Inc., a Florida corporation, on October 10, 1972. On that date, while Thomas Jordan and William Murphy were in Miami pursuant to the renotices of taking depositions, they were both served in their individual capacities. At the same time service was made on Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New York and Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New Jersey by serving summonses on William Murphy, as an officer of both foreign corporations. Defendants, Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New York, Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New Jersey, Thomas Jordan and William Murphy filed a motion to quash process and services of *297process with supporting affidavits which reflected William Murphy to be a resident of the State of New Jersey and Thomas Jordan to be a resident of the State of New York. The motion was denied.
Appellants contend that a non-resident named in the complaint as a party defendant is immune from service of process in the same action while appearing as a witness for a deposition.
It is well established in Florida that witnesses and suitors in attendance in court outside of the territorial jurisdiction of their residence are immune from service of process while attending court and for a reasonable time before and after going to court and in returning to their homes. Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442, 178 So. 112 (1937).
We also are aware of the fact that there is an exception to the immunity rule. State ex rel. Ivey v. Circuit Court, Fla. 1951, 51 So.2d 792 and Lienard v. DeWitt, Fla.1963, 153 So.2d 302. However, in order for this exception to be controlling there must be (1) identity of parties and (2) identity of issues. Lienard v. DeWitt, supra, and Bruner v. Robins, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So.2d 567. In the case sub judice the witnesses, William Murphy and Thomas Jordan, were deposed as corporate officers only and not in their capacity as individuals. It would appear that they were to testify also as corporate witnesses. It follows then that the necessary element of identity of parties is lacking and, therefore, the general rule of immunity from service of process, rather than the exception, applies. See 72 C.J.S. Process § 80 (1951).
Further, the record reveals that service was made upon Murphy & Jordan, Inc. of New York and Murphy & Jordan, Inc.1 of New Jersey through “William Murphy, as officer.” Process was improper as F.S. § 48.081 2 F.S.A. requires that service be made on the president of the corporation if he is present as in the case sub judice.
The order denying the motion to quash process and service of process is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to quash process and service of process.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1983)…lated with the subject matter of the case at bar, i.e., there is identity of parties and of subject matter. State ex rel. Ivey v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 51 So. 2d 792 (Fla.1951); Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
-
Cordoba v. Cordoba, 393 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…not apply to suitors in the very cause for which they have entered the jurisdiction where there exists identity of parties and legal issues. The dissent disposes of appellants’ reliance on Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), by pointing out that in that case there was no identity of parties. So perhaps the dissent concedes that even where process issues in the same cause there must be identity of the parties to invoke the exception. What remains, then…1 / 2
-
Pomerantz v. Hollowell, 502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…n pending litigation are immune from service of process for a reasonable time before and after they testify. Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1983); Lienard v. De Witt, 153 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1963); Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The evidence established that Pomerantz was a resident of Georgia who entered Florida only to provide deposition testimony in a suit wherein he was not a party. As such, he was immune from service when he was served immediately f…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1937)
- State Ex Rel. Ivey v. Cir. Court of Eleventh Jud. Cir., 51 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1951)
- Lienard v. DeWITT, 153 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1963)
- Faye Bruner v. Robins, 191 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)