1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume95 Pennoyerv.Neff

Case

ReceivefreedailysummariesofnewU.S.SupremeCourtopinions.
Enteryouremail.
SUBSCRIBE

Pennoyerv.Neff
95U.S.714(1878)
AnnotatethisCase

Opinion

Annotation

Syllabus | Case

U.S.SupremeCourt
Pennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714(1878)
Pennoyerv.Neff
95U.S.714
ERRORTOTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
FORTHEDISTRICTOFOREGON
Syllabus
1.AstatuteofOregon,afterprovidingforserviceofsummonsuponpartiesortheir
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

1/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

representatives,personallyorattheirresidence,declaresthat,whenservicecannotbethus
made,andthedefendant,afterduediligence,cannotbefoundwithintheState,and
"thatfactappears,byaffidavit,tothesatisfactionofthecourtorjudgethereof,andit,inlike
manner,appearsthatacauseofactionexistsagainstthedefendant,orthatheisaproper
partytoanactionrelatingtorealpropertyintheState,suchcourtorjudgemaygrantan
orderthattheservicebemadebypublicationofsummons...whenthedefendantisnota
residentoftheState,buthaspropertytherein,andthecourthasjurisdictionofthesubjectof
theaction,"
theordertodesignateanewspaperofthecountywheretheactioniscommencedin
whichthepublicationshallbemadeandthatproofofsuchpublicationshallbe"the
affidavitoftheprinter,orhisforeman,orhisprincipalclerk."
Held,thatdefectsintheaffidavitfortheordercanonlybetakenadvantageofonappeal,or
bysomeotherdirectproceeding,andcannotbeurgedtoimpeachthejudgmentcollaterally,
andthattheprovisionastoproofofthepublicationissatisfiedwhentheaffidavitismadeby
theeditorofthepaper.
2.ApersonaljudgmentiswithoutanyvalidityifitberenderedbyaStatecourtinanaction
uponamoneydemandagainstanonresidentoftheStatewhowasservedbyapublication
ofsummons,butuponwhomnopersonalserviceofprocesswithintheStatewasmade,
andwhodidnotappearandnotitletopropertypassesbyasaleunderanexecutionissued
uponsuchajudgment.
3.TheState,havingwithinherterritorypropertyofanonresident,mayholdandappropriate
ittosatisfytheclaimsofhercitizensagainsthim,andhertribunalsmayinquireintohis
obligationstotheextentnecessarytocontrolthedispositionofthatproperty.Ifhehasno
propertyintheState,thereisnothinguponwhichhertribunalscanadjudicate.
4.Substitutedservicebypublication,orinanyotherauthorizedform,issufficienttoinforma
nonresidentoftheobjectofproceedingstakenwhere
Page95U.S.715
propertyisoncebroughtunderthecontrolofthecourtbyseizureorsomeequivalentact,
butwherethesuitisbroughttodeterminehispersonalrightsandobligations,thatis,where
itismerelyinpersonam,suchserviceuponhimisineffectualforanypurpose.
5.ProcessfromthetribunalsofoneStatecannotrunintoanotherStateandsummona
partytheredomiciledtorespondtoproceedingsagainsthim,andpublicationofprocessor
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

2/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

ofnoticewithintheStateinwhichthetribunalsitscannotcreateanygreaterobligationupon
himtoappear.ProcesssenttohimoutoftheState,andprocesspublishedwithinit,are
equallyunavailinginproceedingstoestablishhispersonalliability.
6.Exceptincasesaffectingthepersonalstatusoftheplaintiff,andinthosewhereinthat
modeofservicemaybeconsideredtohavebeenassentedtoinadvance,thesubstituted
serviceofprocessbypublicationallowedbythelawofOregonandbysimilarlawsinother
Stateswhereactionsarebroughtagainstnonresidentsiseffectualonlywhere,inconnection
withprocessagainstthepersonforcommencingtheaction,propertyintheStateisbrought
underthecontrolofthecourtandsubjectedtoitsdispositionbyprocessadaptedtothat
purpose,orwherethejudgmentissoughtasameansofreachingsuchpropertyoraffecting
someinterestthereininotherwords,wheretheactionisinthenatureofaproceedingin
rem.
7.WhilstthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesarenotforeigntribunalsintheirrelationstothe
Statecourts,theyaretribunalsofadifferentsovereignty,andareboundtogiveajudgment
ofaStatecourtonlythesamefaithandcredittowhichitisentitledinthecourtsofanother
State.
8.Theterm"dueprocessoflaw,"whenappliedtojudicialproceedings,meansacourseof
legalproceedingsaccordingtothoserulesandprincipleswhichhavebeenestablishedby
ourjurisprudencefortheprotectionandenforcementofprivaterights.Togivesuch
proceedingsanyvalidity,theremustbeacompetenttribunaltopassupontheirsubject
matter,andifthatinvolvesmerelyadeterminationofthepersonalliabilityofthedefendant,
hemustbebroughtwithinitsjurisdictionbyserviceofprocesswithintheState,orbyhis
voluntaryappearance.
ThisactionwasbroughtbyNeffagainstPennoyerfortherecoveryofatractoflandsituated
inMultnomahCounty,Oregon.Pennoyer,inhisanswer,deniedNeff'stitleandrightto
possession,andsetupatitleinhimself.
Byconsentofparties,andinpursuanceoftheirwrittenstipulationfiledinthecase,the
causewastriedbythecourt,andaspecialverdictgiven,uponwhichjudgmentwas
renderedinfavorofNeffwhereuponPennoyersuedoutthiswritoferror.
Thepartiesrespectivelyclaimedtitleasfollows:Neffunderapatentissuedtohimbythe
UnitedStates,March19,
Page95U.S.716

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

3/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

1866andPennoyerbyvirtueofasalemadebythesheriffofsaidcounty,underan
executionsuedoutuponajudgmentagainstNeff,renderedFeb.19,1866,bytheCircuit
Courtforsaidcounty,inanactionwhereinhewasdefendantandJ.H.Mitchellwasplaintiff.
NeffwasthenanonresidentofOregon.
InMitchellv.Neff,jurisdictionofNeffwasobtainedbyserviceofsummonsbypublication.
Pennoyerofferedinevidencedulycertifiedcopiesofthecomplaint,summons,orderfor
publicationofsummons,affidavitofservicebypublication,andthejudgmentinthatcase,to
theintroductionofwhichpaperstheplaintiffobjectedbecause,1,saidjudgmentisin
personam,andappearstohavebeengivenwithouttheappearanceofthedefendantinthe
actionorpersonalserviceofthesummonsuponhim,andwhilehewasanonresidentofthe
State,andis,therefore,void2,saidjudgmentisnotinrem,andthereforeconstitutesno
basisoftitleinthedefendant3,saidcopiesofcomplaint,&c.,donotshowjurisdictionto
givethejudgmentalleged,eitherinremorpersonamand,4,itappearsfromsaidpapers
thatnoproofofservicebypublicationwasevermade,theaffidavitthereofbeingmadeby
the"editor"ofthe"PacificChristianAdvocate,"andnotby"theprinter,orhisforemanor
principalclerk."Thecourtadmittedtheevidencesubjecttotheobjections.
Thefindingofthecourtinregardtothefactsbearingupontheassertedjurisdictionofthe
Statecourtisasfollows:
That,onNov.13,1865,MitchellappliedtosaidCircuitCourt,uponhisownaffidavitofthat
date,foranorderallowingtheserviceofthesummonsinsaidactiontobemadeuponNeff
bypublicationthereof,whereuponsaidcourtmadesaidorder,inthewordsfollowing:
"Now,atthisday,comestheplaintiffinhisproperperson,andbyhisattorneys,Mitchelland
Dolph,andfilesaffidavitofplaintiff,andmotionforanorderofpublicationofsummons,as
follows,towit:"
"Nowcomestheplaintiff,byhisattorneys,andupontheaffidavitofplaintiff,herewithfiled,
movesthecourtforanorderofpublicationofsummonsagainstdefendant,asrequiredby
law,hebeinganonresident"
"anditappearingtothesatisfactionofthecourtthatthedefendantcannot,afterdue
diligence,be
Page95U.S.717
foundinthisState,andthatheisanonresidentthereof,thathisplaceofresidenceis
unknowntoplaintiff,andcannot,withreasonablediligence,beascertainedbyhim,andthat
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

4/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

theplaintiffhasacauseofactionofactionagainstdefendant,andthatdefendanthas
propertyinthiscountyandState,itisorderedandadjudgedbythecourtthatserviceofthe
summonsinthisactionbemadebypublicationforsixweekssuccessivelyinthe'Pacific
ChristianAdvocate,'aweeklynewspaperpublishedinMultnomahCounty,Oregon,andthis
actioniscontinuedforsuchservice."
Thattheaffidavitofplaintiff,referredtoinsaidorder,isinthewordsfollowing:
"I,J.H.Mitchell,beingfirstdulysworn,saythatthedefendant,MarcusNeff,isa
nonresidentofthisStatethatheresidessomewhereintheStateofCalifornia,atwhatplace
affiantknowsnot,andhecannotbefoundinthisStatethatplaintiffhasajustcauseof
actionagainstdefendantforamoneydemandonaccountthatthiscourthasjurisdictionof
suchactionthatthedefendanthaspropertyinthiscountyandState."
ThatthecomplaintinsaidactionwasverifiedandfiledonNov.3,1865,andcontainedfacts
tendingtoprovethat,atthatdate,saidMitchellhadacauseofactionagainstsaidNefffor
servicesasanattorney,performed"betweenJan.1,1862,andMay15,1863."Thatthe
entryofjudgmentinsaidactioncontainedthefollowingaverments:
"Anditappearingtothecourtthatthedefendantwas,atthetimeofthecommencementof
thisaction,andeversincehasbeen,anonresidentofthisStateanditfurtherappearing
thathehaspropertyinthisState,andthatdefendanthadnoticeofthependencyofthis
actionbypublicationofthesummonsforsixsuccessiveweeksinthe'PacificChristian
Advocate,'aweeklynewspaperofgeneralcirculationpublishedinMultnomahCounty,State
ofOregon,thelastissueofwhichwasmorethantwentydaysbeforethefirstdayofthis
term."
Thattheaffidavitshowingthepublicationofthesummonsinthe"Advocate"aforesaidwas
madeasstatedthereinbythe"editor"ofthatpaper.Thatsaidcomplaint,summons,affidavit
ofMitchellandofthe"editor"ofthe"Advocate"aforesaid,andentryofjudgment,wereinthe
judgmentroll,madeupbytheclerkinthecase,buttheorderforpublicationofthesummons
aforesaidwasnotplacedinsaidroll
Page95U.S.718
bysaidclerk,butremainsonthefilesofsaidcourtandthat,whensaidcourtmadesaid
orderforpublication,andgavesaidjudgmentagainstNeff,theonlyevidenceithadbeforeit
toprovethefactsnecessarytogiveitjurisdictiontherefor,andparticularlytoauthorizeitto
findandstatethatNeff'sresidencewasunknowntoMitchell,andcouldnot,withreasonable
diligence,beascertainedbyhim,andthatNeffhadnoticeofthependencyofsaidactionby
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

5/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thepublicationofthesummonsasaforesaid,was,sofarasappearsbythesaidrollandthe
recordsandfilesofthesaidcourt,thesaidcomplaintandaffidavitsofMitchellandtheeditor
ofthe"Advocate."
ThestatuteofOregonatthetimeofthecommencementofthesuitagainstNeffwasas
follows:
"SECT.55.Whenserviceofthesummonscannotbemadeasprescribedinthelast
precedingsection,andthedefendant,afterduediligence,cannotbefoundwithintheState,
andwhenthatfactappears,byaffidavit,tothesatisfactionofthecourtorjudgethereof,or
justiceinanactioninajustice'scourt,anditalsoappearsthatacauseofactionexists
againstthedefendant,orthatheisaproperpartytoanactionrelatingtorealpropertyinthis
State,suchcourtorjudgeorjusticemaygrantanorderthattheservicebemadeby
publicationofsummonsineitherofthefollowingcases:..."
"3.WhenthedefendantisnotaresidentoftheState,buthaspropertytherein,andthecourt
hasjurisdictionofthesubjectoftheaction."
"SECT.56.Theordershalldirectthepublicationtobemadeinanewspaperpublishedin
thecountywheretheactioniscommenced,and,ifnonewspaperbepublishedinthe
county,theninanewspapertobedesignatedasmostlikelytogivenoticetothepersonto
beserved,andforsuchlengthoftimeasmaybedeemedreasonable,notlessthanoncea
weekforsixweeks.Incaseofpublication,thecourtorjudgeshallalsodirectacopyofthe
summonsandcomplainttobeforthwithdepositedinthepostoffice,directedtothe
defendant,athisplaceofresidence,unlessitshallappearthatsuchresidenceisneither
knowntothepartymakingtheapplication,norcan,withreasonablediligence,be
ascertainedbyhim.Whenpublicationisordered,personalserviceofacopyofthe
summonsandcomplaintoutoftheStateshallbeequivalenttopublicationanddepositinthe
postoffice.Ineithercase,thedefendantshallappearandanswerbythefirstdayoftheterm
followingthe
Page95U.S.719
expirationofthetimeprescribedintheorderforpublicationand,ifhedoesnot,judgment
maybetakenagainsthimforwantthereof.IncaseofpersonalserviceoutoftheState,the
summonsshallspecifythetimeprescribedintheorderforpublication."
"SECT.57.Thedefendantagainstwhompublicationisordered,orhispersonal
representatives,onapplicationandsufficientcauseshown,atanytimebeforejudgment,
shallbeallowedtodefendtheactionandthedefendantagainstwhompublicationis
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

6/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

ordered,orhisrepresentatives,mayinlikemanner,upongoodcauseshown,andupon
suchtermsasmaybeproper,beallowedtodefendafterjudgment,andwithinoneyear
aftertheentryofsuchjudgment,onsuchtermsasmaybejustand,ifthedefencebe
successful,andthejudgmentoranypartthereofhavebeencollectedorotherwiseenforced,
suchrestitutionmaythereuponbecompelledasthecourtshalldirect.Butthetitleto
propertysolduponexecutionissuedonsuchjudgmenttoapurchaseringoodfaithshallnot
betherebyaffected."
"SECT.60.Proofoftheserviceofsummonsshallbe,incaseofpublication,theaffidavitof
theprinter,orhisforeman,orhisprincipalclerk,showingthesame."
MR.JUSTICEFIELDdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt.
Thisisanactiontorecoverthepossessionofatractofland,oftheallegedvalueof
$15,000,situatedintheStateofOregon.Theplaintiffassertstitletothepremisesbya
patentoftheUnitedStatesissuedtohimin1866,undertheactofCongressofSept.27,
1850,usuallyknownastheDonationLawofOregon.Thedefendantclaimstohave
acquiredthepremisesunderasheriff'sdeed,madeuponasaleofthepropertyon
executionissueduponajudgmentrecoveredagainsttheplaintiffinoneofthecircuitcourts
oftheState.Thecaseturnsuponthevalidityofthisjudgment.
ItappearsfromtherecordthatthejudgmentwasrenderedinFebruary,1866,infavorofJ.
H.Mitchell,forlessthan$300,includingcosts,inanactionbroughtbyhimuponademand
forservicesasanattorneythat,atthetimetheactionwascommencedandthejudgment
rendered,thedefendanttherein,theplaintiffhere,wasanonresidentoftheState
Page95U.S.720
thathewasnotpersonallyservedwithprocess,anddidnotappearthereinandthatthe
judgmentwasentereduponhisdefaultinnotansweringthecomplaint,uponaconstructive
serviceofsummonsbypublication.
TheCodeofOregonprovidesforsuchservicewhenanactionisbroughtagainsta
nonresidentandabsentdefendantwhohaspropertywithintheState.Italsoprovides,where
theactionisfortherecoveryofmoneyordamages,fortheattachmentofthepropertyofthe
nonresident.Anditalsodeclaresthatnonaturalpersonissubjecttothejurisdictionofa
courtoftheState
"unlessheappearinthecourt,orbefoundwithintheState,orbearesidentthereof,orhave
propertythereinand,inthelastcase,onlytotheextentofsuchpropertyatthetimethe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

7/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

jurisdictionattached."
Construingthislatterprovisiontomeanthat,inanactionformoneyordamageswherea
defendantdoesnotappearinthecourt,andisnotfoundwithintheState,andisnota
residentthereof,buthaspropertytherein,thejurisdictionofthecourtextendsonlyoversuch
property,thedeclarationexpressesaprincipleofgeneral,ifnotuniversal,law.Theauthority
ofeverytribunalisnecessarilyrestrictedbytheterritoriallimitsoftheStateinwhichitis
established.Anyattempttoexerciseauthoritybeyondthoselimitswouldbedeemedin
everyotherforum,ashasbeensaidbythisCourt,anillegitimateassumptionofpower,and
beresistedasmereabuse.D'Arcyv.Ketchumetal.,11How.165.Inthecaseagainstthe
plaintiff,thepropertyhereincontroversysoldunderthejudgmentrenderedwasnot
attached,norinanywaybroughtunderthejurisdictionofthecourt.Itsfirstconnectionwith
thecasewascausedbyalevyoftheexecution.Itwasnot,therefore,disposedofpursuant
toanyadjudication,butonlyinenforcementofapersonaljudgment,havingnorelationto
theproperty,renderedagainstanonresidentwithoutserviceofprocessuponhiminthe
actionorhisappearancetherein.Thecourtbelowdidnotconsiderthatanattachmentofthe
propertywasessentialtoitsjurisdictionortothevalidityofthesale,butheldthatthe
judgmentwasinvalidfromdefectsintheaffidavituponwhichtheorderofpublicationwas
obtainedandintheaffidavitbywhichthepublicationwasproved.
Page95U.S.721
ThereissomedifferenceofopinionamongthemembersofthisCourtastotherulingsupon
theseallegeddefects.Themajorityareofopinionthat,inasmuchasthestatuterequires,for
anorderofpublication,thatcertainfactsshallappearbyaffidavittothesatisfactionofthe
courtorjudge,defectsinsuchaffidavitcanonlybetakenadvantageofonappeal,orby
someotherdirectproceeding,andcannotbeurgedtoimpeachthejudgmentcollaterally.
Themajorityofthecourtarealsoofopinionthattheprovisionofthestatuterequiringproof
ofthepublicationinanewspapertobemadebythe"affidavitoftheprinter,orhisforeman,
orhisprincipalclerk"issatisfiedwhentheaffidavitismadebytheeditorofthepaper.The
term"printer,"intheirjudgment,isthereusednottoindicatethepersonwhosetsupthe
typehedoesnotusuallyhaveaforemanorclerksitisratherusedassynonymouswith
publisher.TheSupremeCourtofNewYorksoheldinonecaseobservingthat,forthe
purposeofmakingtherequiredproof,publisherswere"withinthespiritofthestatute."
Buncev.Reed,16Barb.(N.Y.)350.And,followingthisruling,theSupremeCourtof
Californiaheldthatanaffidavitmadebya"publisherandproprietor"wassufficient.Sharpv.
Daugney,33Cal.512.Theterm"editor,"asusedwhenthestatuteofNewYorkwas
passed,fromwhichtheOregonlawisborrowed,usuallyincludednotonlythepersonwho
wroteorselectedthearticlesforpublication,butthepersonwhopublishedthepaperand
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

8/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

putitintocirculation.Webster,inanearlyeditionofhisDictionary,givesasoneofthe
definitionsofaneditor,aperson"whosuperintendsthepublicationofanewspaper."Itis
principallysincethattimethatthebusinessofaneditorhasbeenseparatedfromthatofa
publisherandprinter,andhasbecomeanindependentprofession.
If,therefore,wewereconfinedtotherulingsofthecourtbelowuponthedefectsinthe
affidavitsmentioned,weshouldbeunabletoupholditsdecision.Butitwasalsocontended
inthatcourt,andisinsisteduponhere,thatthejudgmentintheStatecourtagainstthe
plaintiffwasvoidforwantofpersonalserviceofprocessonhim,orofhisappearanceinthe
actioninwhichitwasrenderedandthatthepremisesincontroversycouldnotbesubjected
tothepaymentofthedemand
Page95U.S.722
ofaresidentcreditorexceptbyaproceedinginrem,thatis,byadirectproceedingagainst
thepropertyforthatpurpose.Ifthesepositionsaresound,therulingoftheCircuitCourtas
totheinvalidityofthatjudgmentmustbesustainednotwithstandingourdissentfromthe
reasonsuponwhichitwasmade.Andthattheyaresoundwouldseemtofollowfromtwo
wellestablishedprinciplesofpubliclawrespectingthejurisdictionofanindependentState
overpersonsandproperty.TheseveralStatesoftheUnionarenot,itistrue,inevery
respectindependent,manyoftherightandpowerswhichoriginallybelongedtothembeing
nowvestedinthegovernmentcreatedbytheConstitution.But,exceptasrestrainedand
limitedbythatinstrument,theypossessandexercisetheauthorityofindependentStates,
andtheprinciplesofpubliclawtowhichwehavereferredareapplicabletothem.Oneof
theseprinciplesisthateveryStatepossessesexclusivejurisdictionandsovereigntyover
personsandpropertywithinitsterritory.Asaconsequence,everyStatehasthepowerto
determineforitselfthecivilstatusandcapacitiesofitsinhabitantstoprescribethesubjects
uponwhichtheymaycontract,theformsandsolemnitieswithwhichtheircontractsshallbe
executed,therightsandobligationsarisingfromthem,andthemodeinwhichtheirvalidity
shallbedeterminedandtheirobligationsenforcedandalsotheregulatethemannerand
conditionsuponwhichpropertysituatedwithinsuchterritory,bothpersonalandreal,maybe
acquired,enjoyed,andtransferred.Theotherprincipleofpubliclawreferredtofollowsfrom
theonementionedthatis,thatnoStatecanexercisedirectjurisdictionandauthorityover
personsorpropertywithoutitsterritory.Story,Confl.Laws,c.2Wheat.Int.Law,pt.2,c.2.
TheseveralStatesareofequaldignityandauthority,andtheindependenceofoneimplies
theexclusionofpowerfromallothers.Andsoitislaiddownbyjuristsasanelementary
principlethatthelawsofoneStatehavenooperationoutsideofitsterritoryexceptsofaras
isallowedbycomity,andthatnotribunalestablishedbyitcanextenditsprocessbeyond
thatterritorysoastosubjecteitherpersonsorpropertytoitsdecisions."Anyexertionof
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

9/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

authorityofthissortbeyondthislimit,"saysStory,"isamerenullity,andincapableof
binding
Page95U.S.723
suchpersonsorpropertyinanyothertribunals."Story,Confl.Laws,sect.539.
ButascontractsmadeinoneStatemaybeenforceableonlyinanotherState,andproperty
maybeheldbynonresidents,theexerciseofthejurisdictionwhicheveryStateisadmitted
topossessoverpersonsandpropertywithinitsownterritorywilloftenaffectpersonsand
propertywithoutit.ToanyinfluenceexertedinthiswaybyaStateaffectingpersons
residentorpropertysituatedelsewhere,noobjectioncanbejustlytakenwhilstanydirect
exertionofauthorityuponthem,inanattempttogiveexterritorialoperationtoitslaws,orto
enforceanexterritorialjurisdictionbyitstribunals,wouldbedeemedanencroachment
upontheindependenceoftheStateinwhichthepersonsaredomiciledorthepropertyis
situated,andberesistedasusurpation.
ThustheState,throughitstribunals,maycompelpersonsdomiciledwithinitslimitsto
execute,inpursuanceoftheircontractsrespectingpropertyelsewheresituated,instruments
insuchformandwithsuchsolemnitiesastotransferthetitle,sofarassuchformalitiescan
becompliedwithandtheexerciseofthisjurisdictioninnomannerinterfereswiththe
supremecontroloverthepropertybytheStatewithinwhichitissituated.Pennv.Lord
Baltimore,1Ves.444Massiev.Watts,6Cranch148Watkinsv.Holman,16Pet.25
Corbettv.Nutt,10Wall.464.
SotheState,throughitstribunals,maysubjectpropertysituatedwithinitslimitsownedby
nonresidentstothepaymentofthedemandofitsowncitizensagainstthem,andthe
exerciseofthisjurisdictioninnorespectinfringesuponthesovereigntyoftheStatewhere
theownersaredomiciled.EveryStateowesprotectiontoitsowncitizens,and,when
nonresidentsdealwiththem,itisalegitimateandjustexerciseofauthoritytoholdand
appropriateanypropertyownedbysuchnonresidentstosatisfytheclaimsofitscitizens.It
isinvirtueoftheState'sjurisdictionoverthepropertyofthenonresidentsituatedwithinits
limitsthatitstribunalscaninquireintothatnonresident'sobligationstoitsowncitizens,and
theinquirycanthenbecarriedonlytotheextentnecessarytocontrolthedispositionofthe
property.Ifthenonresident
Page95U.S.724
havenopropertyintheState,thereisnothinguponwhichthetribunalscanadjudicate.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

10/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Theseviewsarenotnew.Theyhavebeenfrequentlyexpressed,withmoreorless
distinctness,inopinionsofeminentjudges,andhavebeencarriedintoadjudicationsin
numerouscases.Thus,inPicquetv.Swan,5Mas.35,Mr.JusticeStorysaid:
"Whereapartyiswithinaterritory,hemayjustlybesubjectedtoitsprocess,andbound
personallybythejudgmentpronouncedonsuchprocessagainsthim.Whereheisnot
withinsuchterritory,andisnotpersonallysubjecttoitslaws,if,onaccountofhissupposed
oractualpropertybeingwithintheterritory,processbythelocallawsmay,byattachment,
gotocompelhisappearance,and,forhisdefaulttoappear,judgmentmaybepronounced
againsthim,suchajudgmentmust,upongeneralprinciples,bedeemedonlytobindhimto
theextentofsuchproperty,andcannothavetheeffectofaconclusivejudgmentin
personam,fortheplainreason,that,exceptsofarasthepropertyisconcerned,itisa
judgmentcoramnonjudice."
AndinBoswell'sLesseev.Otis,9How.336,wherethetitleoftheplaintiffinejectmentwas
acquiredonasheriff'ssaleunderamoneydecreerendereduponpublicationofnotice
againstnonresidents,inasuitbroughttoenforceacontractrelatingtoland,Mr.Justice
McLeansaid:
"Jurisdictionisacquiredinoneoftwomodes:first,asagainstthepersonofthedefendant
bytheserviceofprocessor,secondly,byaprocedureagainstthepropertyofthe
defendantwithinthejurisdictionofthecourt.Inthelattercase,thedefendantisnot
personallyboundbythejudgmentbeyondthepropertyinquestion.Anditisimmaterial
whethertheproceedingagainstthepropertybebyanattachmentorbillinchancery.Itmust
besubstantiallyaproceedinginrem."
Thesecitationsarenotmadeasauthoritativeexpositionsofthelaw,forthelanguagewas
perhapsnotessentialtothedecisionofthecasesinwhichitwasused,butasexpressions
oftheopinionofeminentjurists.ButinCooperv.Reynolds,reportedinthe10thofWallace,
itwasessentialtothedispositionofthecasetodeclaretheeffectofapersonalaction
againstanabsentparty,withoutthejurisdictionofthecourt,notserved
Page95U.S.725
withprocessorvoluntarilysubmittingtothetribunal,whenitwassoughttosubjecthis
propertytothepaymentofademandofaresidentcomplainantand,intheopinionthere
delivered,wehaveaclearstatementofthelawastotheefficacyofsuchactions,andthe
jurisdictionofthecourtoverthem.Inthatcase,theactionwasfordamagesforallegedfalse
imprisonmentoftheplaintiffand,uponhisaffidavitthatthedefendantshadfledfromthe
State,orhadabscondedorconcealedthemselvessothattheordinaryprocessoflawcould
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

11/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

notreachthem,awritofattachmentwassuedoutagainsttheirproperty.Publicationwas
orderedbythecourt,givingnoticetothemtoappearandplead,answerordemur,orthat
theactionwouldbetakenasconfessedandproceededinexparteastothem.Publication
washad,buttheymadedefault,andjudgmentwasenteredagainstthem,andtheattached
propertywassoldunderit.Thepurchaserhavingbeenputintopossessionoftheproperty,
theoriginalownerbroughtejectmentforitsrecovery.Inconsideringthecharacterofthe
proceeding,theCourt,speakingthroughMr.JusticeMiller,said:
"Itsessentialpurposeornatureistoestablish,bythejudgmentofthecourt,ademandor
claimagainstthedefendant,andsubjecthispropertylyingwithintheterritorialjurisdictionof
thecourttothepaymentofthatdemand.Buttheplaintiffismetatthecommencementofhis
proceedingsbythefactthatthedefendantisnotwithintheterritorialjurisdiction,andcannot
beservedwithanyprocessbywhichhecanbebroughtpersonallywithinthepowerofthe
court.Forthisdifficulty,thestatutehasprovidedaremedy.Itsaysthat,uponaffidavit's
beingmadeofthatfact,awritofattachmentmaybeissuedandleviedonanyofthe
defendant'sproperty,andapublicationmaybemadewarninghimtoappearandthat
thereafterthecourtmayproceedinthecase,whetherheappearsornot.Ifthedefendant
appears,thecausebecomesmainlyasuitinpersonam,withtheaddedincidentthatthe
propertyattachedremainsliable,underthecontrolofthecourt,toanswertoanydemand
whichmaybeestablishedagainstthedefendantbythefinaljudgmentofthecourt.Butif
thereisnoappearanceofthedefendant,andnoserviceofprocessonhim,thecase
becomesinitsessentialnatureaproceedinginrem,theonlyeffectofwhichistosubjectthe
propertyattachedtothepaymentofthedemandwhichthecourtmayfindtobeduetothe
plaintiff.Thatsuchis
Page95U.S.726
thenatureofthisproceedinginthislatterclassofcasesisclearlyevincedbytwowell
establishedpropositions:first,thejudgmentofthecourt,thoughinformapersonaljudgment
againstthedefendant,hasnoeffectbeyondthepropertyattachedinthatsuit.Nogeneral
executioncanbeissuedforanybalanceunpaidaftertheattachedpropertyisexhausted.
Nosuitcanbemaintainedonsuchajudgmentinthesamecourt,orinanyothernorcanit
beusedasevidenceinanyotherproceedingnotaffectingtheattachedpropertynorcould
thecostsinthatproceedingbecollectedofdefendantoutofanyotherpropertythanthat
attachedinthesuit.Second,thecourtinsuchasuitcannotproceedunlesstheofficerfinds
somepropertyofdefendantonwhichtolevythewritofattachment.Areturnthatnonecan
befoundistheendofthecase,anddeprivesthecourtoffurtherjurisdiction,thoughthe
publicationmayhavebeendulymadeandprovenincourt."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

12/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

ThefactthatthedefendantsinthatcasehadfledfromtheState,orhadconcealed
themselves,soasnottobereachedbytheordinaryprocessofthecourt,andwerenot
nonresidents,wasnotmadeapointinthedecision.Theopiniontreatedthemasbeing
withouttheterritorialjurisdictionofthecourt,andthegroundsandextentofitsauthorityover
personsandpropertythussituatedwereconsideredwhentheywerenotbroughtwithinits
jurisdictionbypersonalserviceorvoluntaryappearance.
Thewriterofthepresentopinionconsideredthatsomeoftheobjectionstothepreliminary
proceedingsintheattachmentsuitwerewelltaken,andthereforedissentedfromthe
judgmentoftheCourt,but,tothedoctrinedeclaredintheabovecitation,heagreed,andhe
mayaddthatitreceivedtheapprovalofallthejudges.Itistheonlydoctrineconsistentwith
properprotectiontocitizensofotherStates.If,withoutpersonalservice,judgmentsin
personam,obtainedexparteagainstnonresidentsandabsentparties,uponmere
publicationofprocess,which,inthegreatmajorityofcases,wouldneverbeseenbythe
partiesinterested,couldbeupheldandenforced,theywouldbetheconstantinstrumentsof
fraudandoppression.Judgmentsforallsortsofclaimsuponcontractsandfortorts,realor
pretended,wouldbethusobtained,underwhichpropertywouldbeseized,whenthe
evidenceofthetransactionsupon
Page95U.S.727
whichtheywerefounded,iftheyeverhadanyexistence,hadperished.
Substitutedservicebypublication,orinanyotherauthorizedform,maybesufficientto
informpartiesoftheobjectofproceedingstakenwherepropertyisoncebroughtunderthe
controlofthecourtbyseizureorsomeequivalentact.Thelawassumesthatpropertyis
alwaysinthepossessionofitsowner,inpersonorbyagent,anditproceedsuponthe
theorythatitsseizurewillinformhimnotonlythatitistakenintothecustodyofthecourt,
butthathemustlooktoanyproceedingsauthorizedbylawuponsuchseizureforits
condemnationandsale.Suchservicemayalsobesufficientincaseswheretheobjectof
theactionistoreachanddisposeofpropertyintheState,orofsomeinteresttherein,by
enforcingacontractoralienrespectingthesame,ortopartitionitamongdifferentowners,
or,whenthepublicisaparty,tocondemnandappropriateitforapublicpurpose.Inother
words,suchservicemayanswerinallactionswhicharesubstantiallyproceedingsinrem.
Butwheretheentireobjectoftheactionistodeterminethepersonalrightsandobligations
ofthedefendants,thatis,wherethesuitismerelyinpersonam,constructiveserviceinthis
formuponanonresidentisineffectualforanypurpose.Processfromthetribunalsofone
StatecannotrunintoanotherState,andsummonpartiestheredomiciledtoleaveits
territoryandrespondtoproceedingsagainstthem.Publicationofprocessornoticewithin
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

13/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

theStatewherethetribunalsitscannotcreateanygreaterobligationuponthenonresident
toappear.ProcesssenttohimoutoftheState,andprocesspublishedwithinit,areequally
unavailinginproceedingstoestablishhispersonalliability.
ThewantofauthorityofthetribunalsofaStatetoadjudicateupontheobligationsof
nonresidents,wheretheyhavenopropertywithinitslimits,isnotdeniedbythecourtbelow:
butthepositionisassumed,that,wheretheyhavepropertywithintheState,itisimmaterial
whetherthepropertyisinthefirstinstancebroughtunderthecontrolofthecourtby
attachmentorsomeotherequivalentact,andafterwardsappliedbyitsjudgmenttothe
satisfactionofdemandsagainstitsownerorsuchdemandsbefirstestablishedina
personalaction,and
Page95U.S.728
thepropertyofthenonresidentbeafterwardsseizedandsoldonexecution.Buttheanswer
tothispositionhasalreadybeengiveninthestatementthatthejurisdictionofthecourtto
inquireintoanddeterminehisobligationsatallisonlyincidentaltoitsjurisdictionoverthe
property.Itsjurisdictioninthatrespectcannotbemadetodependuponfactstobe
ascertainedafterithastriedthecauseandrenderedthejudgment.Ifthejudgmentbe
previouslyvoid,itwillnotbecomevalidbythesubsequentdiscoveryofpropertyofthe
defendant,orbyhissubsequentacquisitionofit.Thejudgment,ifvoidwhenrendered,will
alwaysremainvoiditcannotoccupythedoubtfulpositionofbeingvalidifpropertybe
found,andvoidiftherebenone.Evenifthepositionassumedwereconfinedtocases
wherethenonresidentdefendantpossessedpropertyintheStateatthecommencementof
theaction,itwouldstillmakethevalidityoftheproceedingsandjudgmentdependuponthe
questionwhether,beforethelevyoftheexecution,thedefendanthadorhadnotdisposed
oftheproperty.If,beforethelevy,thepropertyshouldbesold,then,accordingtothis
position,thejudgmentwouldnotbebinding.Thisdoctrinewouldintroduceanewelementof
uncertaintyinjudicialproceedings.Thecontraryisthelaw:thevalidityofeveryjudgment
dependsuponthejurisdictionofthecourtbeforeitisrendered,notuponwhatmayoccur
subsequently.InWebsterv.Reid,reportedin11thofHoward,theplaintiffclaimedtitleto
landsoldunderjudgmentsrecoveredinsuitsbroughtinaterritorialcourtofIowa,upon
publicationofnoticeunderalawoftheterritory,withoutserviceofprocessandthecourt
said:
"Thesesuitswerenotaproceedinginremagainsttheland,butwereinpersonamagainst
theownersofit.Whethertheyallresidedwithintheterritoryornotdoesnotappear,norisit
amatterofanyimportance.Nopersonisrequiredtoanswerinasuitonwhomprocesshas
notbeenserved,orwhosepropertyhasnotbeenattached.Inthiscase,therewasno
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

14/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

personalnotice,noranattachmentorotherproceedingagainsttheland,untilafterthe
judgments.Thejudgments,therefore,arenullities,anddidnotauthorizetheexecutionson
whichthelandwassold."
Page95U.S.729
Theforceandeffectofjudgmentsrenderedagainstnonresidentswithoutpersonalserviceof
processuponthem,ortheirvoluntaryappearance,havebeenthesubjectoffrequent
considerationinthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesandoftheseveralStates,asattemptshave
beenmadetoenforcesuchjudgmentsinStatesotherthanthoseinwhichtheywere
rendered,undertheprovisionoftheConstitutionrequiringthat"fullfaithandcreditshallbe
givenineachStatetothepublicacts,records,andjudicialproceedingsofeveryother
State"andtheactofCongressprovidingforthemodeofauthenticatingsuchacts,records,
andproceedings,anddeclaringthat,whenthusauthenticated,
"theyshallhavesuchfaithandcreditgiventothemineverycourtwithintheUnitedStates
astheyhavebylaworusageinthecourtsoftheStatefromwhichtheyareorshallor
taken."
Intheearliercases,itwassupposedthattheactgavetoalljudgmentsthesameeffectin
otherStateswhichtheyhadbylawintheStatewhererendered.Butthisviewwas
afterwardsqualifiedsoastomaketheactapplicableonlywhenthecourtrenderingthe
judgmenthadjurisdictionofthepartiesandofthesubjectmatter,andnottoprecludean
inquiryintothejurisdictionofthecourtinwhichthejudgmentwasrendered,ortherightof
theStateitselftoexerciseauthorityoverthepersonorthesubjectmatter.M'Elmoylev.
Cohen,13Pet.312.InthecaseofD'Arcyv.Ketchum,reportedinthe11thofHoward,this
viewisstatedwithgreatclearness.ThatwasanactionintheCircuitCourtoftheUnited
StatesforLouisiana,broughtuponajudgmentrenderedinNewYorkunderaStatestatute,
againsttwojointdebtors,onlyoneofwhomhadbeenservedwithprocess,theotherbeinga
nonresidentoftheState.TheCircuitCourtheldthejudgmentconclusiveandbindingupon
thenonresidentnotservedwithprocess,butthisCourtreverseditsdecision,observing,that
itwasafamiliarrulethatcountriesforeigntoourowndisregardedajudgmentmerely
againsttheperson,wherethedefendanthadnotbeenservedwithprocessnorhadadayin
courtthatnationalcomitywasneverthusextendedthattheproceedingwasdeemedan
illegitimateassumptionofpower,andresistedasmereabusethatnofaithandcreditor
forceandeffecthadbeengiventosuchjudgmentsbyanyStateoftheUnion,sofar
Page95U.S.730
asknownandthattheStatecourtshaduniformly,andinmanyinstances,heldthemtobe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

15/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

void."Theinternationallaw,"saidthecourt,
"asitexistedamongtheStatesin1790,wasthatajudgmentrenderedinoneState,
assumingtobindthepersonofacitizenofanother,wasvoidwithintheforeignState,when
thedefendanthadnotbeenservedwithprocessorvoluntarilymadedefence,because
neitherthelegislativejurisdictionnorthatofcourtsofjusticehadbindingforce."
AndtheCourtheldthattheactofCongressdidnotintendtodeclareanewrule,orto
embracejudicialrecordsofthisdescription.Aswasstatedinasubsequentcase,the
doctrineofthisCourtisthattheact
"wasnotdesignedtodisplacethatprincipleofnaturaljusticewhichrequiresapersonto
havenoticeofasuitbeforehecanbeconclusivelyboundbyitsresult,northoserulesof
publiclawwhichprotectpersonsandpropertywithinoneStatefromtheexerciseof
jurisdictionoverthembyanother."
TheLafayetteInsuranceCo.v.Frenchetal.,18How.404.
Thiswholesubjecthasbeenveryfullyandlearnedlyconsideredintherecentcaseof
Thompsonv.Whitman,18Wall.457,wherealltheauthoritiesarecarefullyreviewedand
distinguished,andtheconclusionabovestatedisnotonlyreaffirmed,butthedoctrineis
assertedthattherecordofajudgmentrenderedinanotherStatemaybecontradictedasto
thefactsnecessarytogivethecourtjurisdictionagainstitsrecitaloftheirexistence.Inall
thecasesbroughtintheStateandFederalcourts,whereattemptshavebeenmadeunder
theactofCongresstogiveeffectinoneStatetopersonaljudgmentsrenderedinanother
Stateagainstnonresidents,withoutserviceuponthem,oruponsubstitutedserviceby
publication,orinsomeotherform,ithasbeenheld,withoutanexception,sofarasweare
aware,thatsuchjudgmentswerewithoutanybindingforceexceptastoproperty,or
interestsinproperty,withintheState,toreachandaffectwhichwastheobjectoftheaction
inwhichthejudgmentwasrendered,andwhichpropertywasbroughtundercontrolofthe
courtinconnectionwiththeprocessagainsttheperson.Theproceedinginsuchcases,
thoughintheformofapersonalaction,hasbeenuniformlytreated,whereservicewasnot
obtained,andthepartydidnotvoluntarily
Page95U.S.731
appear,aseffectualandbindingmerelyasaproceedinginrem,andashavingnooperation
beyondthedispositionoftheproperty,orsomeinteresttherein.Andthereasonassignedfor
thisconclusionhasbeenthatwhichwehavealreadystatedthatthetribunalsofoneState
havenojurisdictionoverpersonsbeyonditslimits,andcaninquireonlyintotheirobligations
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

16/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

toitscitizenswhenexercisingitsconcededjurisdictionovertheirpropertywithinitslimits.In
Bissellv.Briggs,decidedbytheSupremeCourtofMassachusettsasearlyas1813,thelaw
isstatedsubstantiallyinconformitywiththeseviews.Inthatcase,thecourtconsideredat
lengththeeffectoftheconstitutionalprovision,andtheactofCongressmentioned,and
afterstatingthat,inordertoentitlethejudgmentrenderedinanycourtoftheUnitedStates
tothefullfaithandcreditmentionedintheConstitution,thecourtmusthavehadjurisdiction
notonlyofthecause,butoftheparties,itproceededtoillustrateitspositionbyobserving,
that,whereadebtorlivinginoneStatehasgoods,effects,andcreditsinanother,his
creditorlivingintheotherStatemayhavethepropertyattachedpursuanttoitslaws,and,
onrecoveringjudgment,havethepropertyappliedtoitssatisfaction,andthatthepartyin
whosehandsthepropertywaswouldbeprotectedbythejudgmentintheStateofthe
debtoragainstasuitforit,becausethecourtrenderingthejudgmenthadjurisdictiontothat
extentbutthat,ifthepropertyattachedwereinsufficienttosatisfythejudgment,andthe
creditorshouldsueonthatjudgmentintheStateofthedebtor,hewouldfailbecausethe
defendantwasnotamenabletothecourtrenderingthejudgment.Inotherwords,itwas
heldthatoverthepropertywithintheStatethecourthadjurisdictionbytheattachment,but
hadnoneoverhisperson,andthatanydeterminationofhisliability,exceptsofaraswas
necessaryforthedispositionoftheproperty,wasinvalid.
InKilbournv.Woodworth,5Johns.(N.Y.)37,anactionofdebtwasbroughtinNewYork
uponapersonaljudgmentrecoveredinMassachusetts.Thedefendantinthatjudgmentwas
notservedwithprocess,andthesuitwascommencedbytheattachmentofabedstead
belongingtothedefendant,accompaniedwithasummonstoappear,servedonhiswife
aftershehadleftherplaceinMassachusetts.Thecourtheldthat
Page95U.S.732
theattachmentboundonlythepropertyattachedasaproceedinginrem,andthatitcould
notbindthedefendant,observing,thattobindadefendantpersonallywhenhewasnever
personallysummonedorhadnoticeoftheproceedingwouldbecontrarytothefirst
principlesofjustice,repeatingthelanguageinthatrespectofChiefJusticeDeGrey,usedin
thecaseofFisherv.Lane,3Wils.297,in1772.SeealsoBordenv.Fitch,15Johns.(N.Y.)
121,andthecasestherecited,andHarrisv.Hardemanetal.,14How.334.Tothesame
purport,decisionsarefoundinalltheStatecourts.Inseveralofthecases,thedecisionhas
beenaccompaniedwiththeobservationthatapersonaljudgmentthusrecoveredhasno
bindingforcewithouttheStateinwhichitisrendered,implyingthat,insuchState,itmaybe
validandbinding.Butifthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendantby
reasonofhisnonresidence,andconsequentlynoauthoritytopassuponhispersonalrights
andobligationsifthewholeproceeding,withoutserviceuponhimorhisappearance,is
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

17/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

coramnonjudiceandvoidiftoholdadefendantboundbysuchajudgmentiscontraryto
thefirstprinciplesofjusticeitisdifficulttoseehowthejudgmentcanlegitimatelyhaveany
forcewithintheState.Thelanguageusedcanbejustifiedonlyonthegroundthattherewas
nomodeofdirectlyreviewingsuchjudgmentorimpeachingitsvaliditywithintheState
whererendered,andthatthereforeitcouldbecalledinquestiononlywhenitsenforcement
waselsewhereattempted.Inlatercases,thislanguageisrepeatedwithlessfrequencythan
formerly,itbeginningtobeconsidered,asitalwaysoughttohavebeen,thatajudgment
whichcanbetreatedinanyStateofthisUnionascontrarytothefirstprinciplesofjustice,
andasanabsolutenullity,becauserenderedwithoutanyjurisdictionofthetribunaloverthe
party,isnotentitledtoanyrespectintheStatewhererendered.Smithv.McCutchen,38
Mo.415Darrancev.Preston,18Iowa,396Hakesv.Shupe,27id.465Mitchell's
Administratorv.Gray,18Ind.123.
Bethatasitmay,thecourtsoftheUnitedStatesarenotrequiredtogiveeffecttojudgments
ofthischaracterwhenanyrightisclaimedunderthem.Whilsttheyarenotforeigntribunals
intheirrelationstotheStatecourts,theyaretribunals
Page95U.S.733
ofadifferentsovereignty,exercisingadistinctandindependentjurisdiction,andarebound
togivetothejudgmentsoftheStatecourtsonlythesamefaithandcreditwhichthecourts
ofanotherStateareboundtogivetothem.
SincetheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheFederalConstitution,thevalidityof
suchjudgmentsmaybedirectlyquestioned,andtheirenforcementintheStateresisted,on
thegroundthatproceedingsinacourtofjusticetodeterminethepersonalrightsand
obligationsofpartiesoverwhomthatcourthasnojurisdictiondonotconstitutedueprocess
oflaw.Whateverdifficultymaybeexperiencedingivingtothosetermsadefinitionwhichwill
embraceeverypermissibleexertionofpoweraffectingprivaterights,andexcludesuchasis
forbidden,therecanbenodoubtoftheirmeaningwhenappliedtojudicialproceedings.
Theythenmeanacourseoflegalproceedingsaccordingtothoserulesandprincipleswhich
havebeenestablishedinoursystemsofjurisprudencefortheprotectionandenforcementof
privaterights.Togivesuchproceedingsanyvalidity,theremustbeatribunalcompetentby
itsconstitutionthatis,bythelawofitscreationtopassuponthesubjectmatterofthe
suitandifthatinvolvesmerelyadeterminationofthepersonalliabilityofthedefendant,he
mustbebroughtwithinitsjurisdictionbyserviceofprocesswithintheState,orhisvoluntary
appearance.
Exceptincasesaffectingthepersonalstatusoftheplaintiffandcasesinwhichthatmodeof
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

18/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

servicemaybeconsideredtohavebeenassentedtoinadvance,ashereinaftermentioned,
thesubstitutedserviceofprocessbypublication,allowedbythelawofOregonandby
similarlawsinotherStates,whereactionsarebroughtagainstnonresidents,iseffectual
onlywhere,inconnectionwithprocessagainstthepersonforcommencingtheaction,
propertyintheStateisbroughtunderthecontrolofthecourt,andsubjectedtoits
dispositionbyprocessadaptedtothatpurpose,orwherethejudgmentissoughtasa
meansofreachingsuchpropertyoraffectingsomeinterestthereininotherwords,where
theactionisinthenatureofaproceedinginrem.AsstatedbyCooleyinhisTreatiseon
ConstitutionalLimitations405,foranyotherpurposethantosubjectthepropertyofa
nonresidenttovalidclaimsagainst
Page95U.S.734
himintheState,"dueprocessoflawwouldrequireappearanceorpersonalservicebefore
thedefendantcouldbepersonallyboundbyanyjudgmentrendered."
Itistruethat,inastrictsense,aproceedinginremisonetakendirectlyagainstproperty,
andhasforitsobjectthedispositionoftheproperty,withoutreferencetothetitleof
individualclaimantsbut,inalargerandmoregeneralsense,thetermsareappliedto
actionsbetweenpartieswherethedirectobjectistoreachanddisposeofpropertyowned
bythem,orofsomeinteresttherein.Sucharecasescommencedbyattachmentagainstthe
propertyofdebtors,orinstitutedtopartitionrealestate,forecloseamortgage,orenforcea
lien.SofarastheyaffectpropertyintheState,theyaresubstantiallyproceedingsinremin
thebroadersensewhichwehavementioned.
Itishardlynecessarytoobservethat,inallwehavesaid,wehavehadreferenceto
proceedingsincourtsoffirstinstance,andtotheirjurisdiction,andnottoproceedingsinan
appellatetribunaltoreviewtheactionofsuchcourts.Thelattermaybetakenuponsuch
notice,personalorconstructive,astheStatecreatingthetribunalmayprovide.Theyare
consideredasratheracontinuationoftheoriginallitigationthanthecommencementofa
newaction.Nationsetal.v.Johnsonetal.,24How.195.
ItfollowsfromtheviewsexpressedthatthepersonaljudgmentrecoveredintheStatecourt
ofOregonagainsttheplaintiffherein,thenanonresidentoftheState,waswithoutany
validity,anddidnotauthorizeasaleofthepropertyincontroversy.
Topreventanymisapplicationoftheviewsexpressedinthisopinion,itispropertoobserve
thatwedonotmeantoassertbyanythingwehavesaidthataStatemaynotauthorize
proceedingstodeterminethestatusofoneofitscitizenstowardsanonresidentwhichwould
bebindingwithintheState,thoughmadewithoutserviceofprocessorpersonalnoticeto
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

19/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thenonresident.ThejurisdictionwhicheveryStatepossessestodeterminethecivilstatus
andcapacitiesofallitsinhabitantsinvolvesauthoritytoprescribetheconditionsonwhich
proceedingsaffectingthemmaybecommencedandcarriedonwithinitsterritory.The
State,forexample,hasabsolute
Page95U.S.735
righttoprescribetheconditionsuponwhichthemarriagerelationbetweenitsowncitizens
shallbecreated,andthecausesforwhichitmaybedissolved.Oneofthepartiesguiltyof
actsforwhich,bythelawoftheState,adissolutionmaybegrantedmayhaveremovedtoa
Statewherenodissolutionispermitted.Thecomplainingpartywould,therefore,failifa
divorceweresoughtintheStateofthedefendantandifapplicationcouldnotbemadeto
thetribunalsofthecomplainant'sdomicileinsuchcase,andproceedingsbethereinstituted
withoutpersonalserviceofprocessorpersonalnoticetotheoffendingparty,theinjured
citizenwouldbewithoutredress.Bish.Marr.andDiv.,sect.156.
NeitherdowemeantoassertthataStatemaynotrequireanonresidententeringintoa
partnershiporassociationwithinitslimits,ormakingcontractsenforceablethere,toappoint
anagentorrepresentativeintheStatetoreceiveserviceofprocessandnoticeinlegal
proceedingsinstitutedwithrespecttosuchpartnership,association,orcontracts,orto
designateaplacewheresuchservicemaybemadeandnoticegiven,andprovide,upon
theirfailure,tomakesuchappointmentortodesignatesuchplacethatservicemaybe
madeuponapublicofficerdesignatedforthatpurpose,orinsomeotherprescribedway,
andthatjudgmentsrendereduponsuchservicemaynotbebindinguponthenonresidents
bothwithinandwithouttheState.AswassaidbytheCourtofExchequerinValleev.
Dumergue,4Exch.290,
"Itisnotcontrarytonaturaljusticethatamanwhohasagreedtoreceiveaparticularmode
ofnotificationoflegalproceedingsshouldbeboundbyajudgmentinwhichthatparticular
modeofnotificationhasbeenfollowed,eventhoughhemaynothaveactualnoticeof
them."
SeealsoTheLafayetteInsuranceCo.v.Frenchetal.,18How.404,andGillespiev.
CommercialMutualMarineInsuranceCo.,12Gray(Mass.),201.Nordowedoubtthata
State,oncreatingcorporationsorotherinstitutionsforpecuniaryorcharitablepurposes,
mayprovideamodeinwhichtheirconductmaybeinvestigated,theirobligationsenforced,
ortheirchartersrevoked,whichshallrequireotherthanpersonalserviceupontheirofficers
ormembers.Partiesbecomingmembersofsuchcorporationsorinstitutionswouldholdtheir
Page95U.S.736
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

20/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

interestsubjecttotheconditionsprescribedbylaw.Copinv.Adamson,LawRep.9Ex.345.
Inthepresentcase,thereisnofeatureofthiskind,andconsequentlynoconsiderationof
whatwouldbetheeffectofsuchlegislationinenforcingthecontractofanonresidentcan
arise.Thequestionhererespectsonlythevalidityofamoneyjudgmentrenderedinone
Stateinanactionuponasimplecontractagainsttheresidentofanotherwithoutserviceof
processuponhimorhisappearancetherein.
Judgmentaffirmed.
MR.JUSTICEHUNTdissenting.
Iamcompelledtodissentfromtheopinionandjudgmentofthecourt,and,deemingthe
questioninvolvedtobeimportant,Itakeleavetorecordmyviewsuponit.
Thejudgmentofthecourtbelowwasplaceduponthegroundthattheprovisionsofthe
statutewerenotcompliedwith.Thisisofcomparativelylittleimportance,asitaffectsthe
presentcaseonly.ThejudgmentofthisCourtisbaseduponthetheorythatthelegislature
hadnopowertopassthelawinquestionthattheprincipleofthestatuteisvicious,and
everyproceedingunderitvoid.It,therefore,affectsalllikecases,pastandfuture,andin
everyState.
Theprecisecaseisthis:astatuteofOregonauthorizessuitstobecommencedbythe
serviceofasummons.InthecaseofanonresidentoftheState,itauthorizestheserviceof
thesummonstobemadebypublicationfornotlessthansixweeks,inanewspaper
publishedinthecountywheretheactioniscommenced.Acopyofthesummonsmustalso
besentbymail,directedtothedefendantathisplaceofresidence,unlessitbeshownthat
theresidenceisnotknownandcannotbeascertained.Itauthorizesajudgmentand
executiontobeobtainedinsuchproceeding.Judgmentinasuitcommencedbyone
MitchellintheCircuitCourtofMultnomahCounty,wherethesummonswasthusserved,
wasobtainedagainstNeff,thepresentplaintiff,andthelandinquestion,situatein
MultnomahCounty,wasboughtbythedefendantPennoyeratasaleuponthejudgmentin
suchsuit.Thiscourtnowholdsthat,byreasonoftheabsenceofapersonalserviceof
Page95U.S.737
thesummonsonthedefendant,theCircuitCourtofOregonhadnojurisdiction,itsjudgment
couldnotauthorizethesaleoflandinsaidcounty,and,asanecessaryresult,apurchaser
oflandunderitobtainednotitlethat,astotheformerowner,itisacaseofdeprivinga
personofhispropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

21/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Inmyopinion,thisdecisionisatvariancewiththelongestablishedpracticeunderthe
statutesoftheStatesofthisUnion,isunsoundinprinciple,and,Ifear,maybedisastrousin
itseffects.Ittendstoproduceconfusionintitleswhichhavebeenobtainedundersimilar
statutesinexistencefornearlyacenturyitinviteslitigationandstrife,andoverthrowsawell
settledruleofproperty.
Theresultoftheauthoritiesonthesubject,andthesoundconclusionstobedrawnfromthe
principleswhichshouldgovernthedecision,asIshallendeavortoshow,arethese:
1.AsovereignStatemustnecessarilyhavesuchcontrolovertherealandpersonalproperty
actuallybeingwithinitslimits,asthatitmaysubjectthesametothepaymentofdebtsjustly
duetoitscitizens.
2.Thisresultisnotalteredbythecircumstancethattheownerofthepropertyis
nonresident,andsoabsentfromtheStatethatlegalprocesscannotbeserveduponhim
personally.
3.Personalnoticeofaproceedingbywhichtitletopropertyispassedisnotindispensable
itiscompetenttotheStatetoauthorizesubstitutedservicebypublicationorotherwise,as
thecommencementofasuitagainstnonresidents,thejudgmentinwhichwillauthorizethe
saleofpropertyinsuchState.
4.ItbelongstothelegislativepoweroftheStatetodeterminewhatshallbethemodesand
meanspropertobeadoptedtogivenoticetoanabsentdefendantofthecommencementof
asuitandiftheyaresuchasarereasonablylikelytocommunicatetohiminformationofthe
proceedingagainsthim,andareingoodfaithdesignedtogivehimsuchinformation,andan
opportunitytodefendisprovidedforhimintheeventofhisappearanceinthesuit,itisnot
competenttothejudiciarytodeclarethatsuchproceedingisvoidasnotbeingbydue
processoflaw.
5.Whetherthepropertyofsuchnonresidentshallbeseized
Page95U.S.738
uponattachmentasthecommencementofasuitwhichshallbecarriedintojudgmentand
execution,uponwhichitshallthenbesold,orwhetheritshallbesolduponanexecution
andjudgmentwithoutsuchpreliminaryseizure,isamatternotofconstitutionalpower,butof
municipalregulationonly.
TosaythatasovereignStatehasthepowertoordainthatthepropertyofnonresidents
withinitsterritorymaybesubjectedtothepaymentofdebtsduetoitscitizens,ifthe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

22/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

propertyislevieduponatthecommencementofasuit,butthatithasnotsuchpowerifthe
propertyislevieduponattheendofthesuit,isarefinementandadepreciationofagreat
generalprinciplethat,inmyjudgment,cannotbesustained.
AreferencetothestatutesofthedifferentStates,andtothestatutesoftheUnitedStates,
andtothedecidedcases,andaconsiderationoftheprinciplesonwhichtheystand,will
moreclearlyexhibitmyviewofthequestion.
Thestatutesareoftwoclasses:first,thosewhichauthorizethecommencementofactions
bypublication,accompaniedbyanattachmentwhichislevieduponproperty,moreorless,
ofanabsentdebtorsecond,thosegivingthelikemodeofcommencingasuitwithoutan
attachment.
ThestatuteofOregonrelatingtopublicationofsummons,supra,p.95U.S.718,under
whichthequestionarises,isnearlyatranscriptofaseriesofprovisionscontainedinthe
NewYorkstatute,adoptedthirtyyearssince.Thelatterauthorizesthecommencementofa
suitagainstanonresidentbythepublicationofanorderforhisappearance,foratimenot
lessthansixweeks,insuchnewspapersasshallbemostlikelytogivenoticetohim,and
thedepositofacopyofthesummonsandcomplaintinthepostoffice,directedtohimathis
residence,ifitcanbeascertainedandprovidesfortheallowancetodefendtheaction
beforejudgment,andwithinsevenyearsafteritsrendition,upongoodcauseshown,and
that,ifthedefencebesuccessful,restitutionshallbeordered.Itthendeclares:"Butthetitle
topropertysoldundersuchjudgmenttoapurchaseringoodfaithshallnotbethereby
affected."Code,sects.34,355Edm.Rev.Stat.ofN.Y.,pp.3739.
Provisionssimilarintheireffect,inauthorizingthecommencementofsuitsbyattachment
againstabsentdebtors,in
Page95U.S.739
whichallofthepropertyoftheabsentdebtor,realandpersonal,notmerelythatseized
upontheattachment,isplacedunderthecontroloftrustees,whosellitforthebenefitofall
thecreditors,andmakejustdistributionthereof,conveyingabsolutetitletothepropertysold
havebeenuponthestatutebookofNewYorkformorethansixtyyears.2id.,p.2and
following1Rev.Laws,1813,p.157.
ThestatuteofNewYork,beforetheCode,respectingproceedingsinchancerywhere
absentdebtorsareparties,hadlongbeeninuseinthatState,andwasadoptedinallcases
ofchanceryjurisdiction.WheneveradefendantresidedoutoftheState,hisappearance
mightbecompelledbypublicationinthemannerpointedout.Adecreemightpassagainst
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

23/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

him,andperformancebecompelledbysequestrationofhisrealorpersonalproperty,orby
causingpossessionofspecificpropertytobedelivered,wherethatreliefissought.The
reliefwasnotconfinedtocasesofmortgageforeclosure,orwheretherewasaspecific
claimupontheproperty,butincludedcasesrequiringthepaymentofmoneyaswell.2
Edm.Rev.Stat.N.Y.,pp.193195186,m.
Idoubtnotthatmanyvaluabletitlesarenowheldbyvirtueoftheprovisionsofthese
statutes.
ThestatuteofCaliforniaauthorizestheserviceofasummonsonanonresidentdefendant
bypublication,permittinghimtocomeinanddefenduponthemeritswithinoneyearafter
theentryofjudgment.Code,sects.10,412,10,473.Initsgeneralcharacter,itislikethe
statutesofOregonandNewYorkalreadyreferredto.
TheCodeofIowa,sect.2618,thatofNevada,sect.1093,andthatofWisconsin,aretothe
samegeneraleffect.TheRevisedStatutesofOhio,sects.70,75,2Swan&Critchfield,
provideforasimilarpublication,andthatthedefendantmaycomeintodefendwithinfive
yearsaftertheentryofthejudgment,butthatthetitletopropertyheldbyanypurchaserin
goodfaithunderthejudgmentshallnotbeaffectedthereby.
TheattachmentlawsofNewJersey,NixonDig.(4thed.),p.55,arelikethoseofNewYork
alreadyquoted,bywhichtitlemaybetransferredtoallthepropertyofanonresidentdebtor.
AndtheprovisionsofthePennsylvaniastatuteregulating
Page95U.S.740
proceedingsinequity,Brightly'sPurden'sDig.,p.5988,sects.51,52,givethesame
authorityinsubstance,andthesameresultisproducedasundertheNewYorkstatute.
WithoutgoingintoawearisomedetailofthestatutesofthevariousStates,itissafetosay
thatnearlyeveryStateintheUnionprovidesaprocessbywhichthelandsandother
propertyofanonresidentdebtormaybesubjectedtothepaymentofhisdebts,througha
judgmentordecreeagainsttheowner,obtaineduponasubstitutedserviceofthesummons
orwritcommencingtheaction.
TheprincipleofsubstitutedserviceisalsoaruleofpropertyunderthestatutesoftheUnited
States.
TheactofCongress"toamendthelawoftheDistrictofColumbiainrelationtojudicial
proceedingstherein,"approvedFeb.23,1867,14Stat.403,containsthesamegeneral
provisions.Itenacts(sect.7)thatpublicationmaybesubstitutedforpersonalservicewhen
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

24/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thedefendantcannotbefoundinsuitsforpartition,divorce,byattachment,forthe
foreclosureofmortgagesanddeedsoftrust,andfortheenforcementofmechanics'liens
andallotherliensagainstrealorpersonalproperty,andinallactionsatlaworinequity
havingfortheirimmediateobjecttheenforcementorestablishmentofanylawfulright,claim,
ordemandtooragainstanyrealorpersonalpropertywithinthejurisdictionofthecourt.
Afollowingsectionpointsoutthemodeofproceeding,andclosesinthesewords:
"Thedecree,besidessubjectingthethinguponwhichthelienhasattachedtothe
satisfactionoftheplaintiff'sdemandagainstthedefendant,shalladjudgethattheplaintiff
recoverhisdemandagainstthedefendant,andthathemayhaveexecutionthereofasat
law."
Sect.10.
Aformaljudgmentagainstthedebtoristhusauthorizedbymeansofwhichanyother
propertyofthedefendantwithinthejurisdictionofthecourt,inadditiontothatwhichisthe
subjectofthelien,maybesold,andthetitletransferredtothepurchaser.
Allthesestatutesarenowadjudgedtobeunconstitutionalandvoid.Thetitlesobtained
underthemarenotofthevalue
Page95U.S.741
ofthepaperonwhichtheyarerecorded,exceptwhereapreliminaryattachmentwas
issued.
SomeofthestatutesandseveraloftheauthoritiesIcitegofurtherthanthepresentcase
requires.Inthiscase,propertylyingintheStatewherethesuitwasbrought,ownedbythe
nonresidentdebtor,wassolduponthejudgmentagainsthim,anditisonthetitletothat
propertythatthecontroversyturns.
Thequestionwhether,inasuitcommencedlikethepresentone,ajudgmentcanbe
obtainedwhich,ifsueduponinanotherState,willbeconclusiveagainstthedebtor,isnot
beforeusnordoesthequestionariseastothefaithandcredittobegiveninoneStatetoa
judgmentrecoveredinanother.Thelearningonthatsubjectisnotapplicable.Thepointis
simplywhetherlandlyinginthesameStatemaybesubjectedtoprocessattheendofasuit
thuscommenced.
ItisherenecessaryonlytomaintaintheprinciplelaiddownbyJudgeCooleyinhisworkon
ConstitutionalLimitations,p.404,andcitedbyMr.JusticeFieldinGalpinv.Page,3Sawyer
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

25/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

93,inthesewords:
"Thefactthatprocesswasnotpersonallyservedisaconclusiveobjectiontothejudgment
asapersonalclaim,unlessthedefendantcausedhisappearancetobeenteredinthe
attachmentproceedings.WhereapartyhaspropertyinaState,andresideselsewhere,his
propertyisjustlysubjecttoallvalidclaimsthatmayexistagainsthimtherebut,beyondthis,
dueprocessoflawwouldrequireappearanceorpersonalservicebeforethedefendant
couldbepersonallyboundbyanyjudgmentrendered."
Thelearnedauthordoesnotmakeitaconditionthatthereshouldbeapreliminaryseizure
ofthepropertybyattachmenthelaysdowntherulethatallaperson'spropertyinaState
maybesubjectedtoallvalidclaimsthereexistingagainsthim.
Theobjectionnowmadethatsuitscommencedbysubstitutedservice,asbypublication,
andjudgmentsobtainedwithoutactualnoticetothedebtor,areinviolationofthat
constitutionalprovisionthatnomanshallbedeprivedofhisproperty"withoutdueprocessof
law,"hasoftenbeenpresented.
InMatteroftheEmpireCityBank,18N.Y.199,which
Page95U.S.742
wasastatutoryproceedingtoestablishandtoenforcetheresponsibilityofthestockholders
ofabankingcorporation,andtheproceedingsinwhichresultedinapersonaljudgment
againstthestockholdersfortheamountfounddue,theeminentandlearnedJudgeDenio,
speakingastheorganoftheCourtofAppeals,says:
"Thenoticeofhearingistobepersonal,orbyserviceattheresidenceofthepartieswho
liveinthecounty,orbyadvertisementastoothers.Itmaythereforehappenthatsomeof
thepersonswhoaremadeliablewillnothavereceivedactualnotice,andthequestionis
whetherpersonalserviceofprocessoractualnoticetothepartyisessentialtoconstitute
dueprocessoflaw.Wehavenotbeenreferredtoanyadjudicationholdingthatnoman's
rightofpropertycanbeaffectedbyjudicialproceedingsunlesshehavepersonalnotice.It
maybeadmittedthatastatutewhichshouldauthorizeanydebtordamagestobeadjudged
againstapersonuponapurelyexparteproceeding,withoutapretenceofnoticeorany
provisionfordefending,wouldbeaviolationoftheConstitution,andbevoidbutwherethe
legislaturehasprescribedakindofnoticebywhichitisreasonablyprobablethattheparty
proceededagainstwillbeapprisedofwhatisgoingonagainsthim,andanopportunityis
affordedhimtodefend,Iamoftheopinionthatthecourtshavenotthepowertopronounce
theproceedingillegal.Thelegislaturehasuniformlyacteduponthatunderstandingofthe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

26/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Constitution."
NumerousprovisionsofthestatutesoftheStatearecommentedupon,afterwhichhe
proceeds:
"Variousprudentialregulationsaremadewithrespecttotheseremediesbutitmaypossibly
happen,notwithstandingalltheseprecautions,thatacitizenwhoowesnothing,andhas
donenoneoftheactsmentionedinthestatute,maybedeprivedofhisestatewithoutany
actualknowledgeoftheprocessbywhichithasbeentakenfromhim.Ifwehold,aswe
mustinordertosustainthislegislation,thattheConstitutiondoesnotpositivelyrequire
personalnoticeinordertoconstitutealegalproceedingdueprocessoflaw,itthenbelongs
tothelegislaturetodeterminewhetherthecasecallsforthiskindofexceptionallegislation,
andwhatmannerofconstructivenoticeshallbesufficienttoreasonablyapprisetheparty
proceededagainstofthelegalstepswhicharetakenagainsthim."
Page95U.S.743
InHappyv.Mosher,48id.313,thecourtsay:
"Anapproveddefinitionofdueprocessoflawis'lawinitsregularadministrationthrough
courtsofjustice.'2KentCom.13.Itneednotbealegalproceedingaccordingtothecourse
ofthecommonlaw,neithermusttherebepersonalnoticetothepartywhosepropertyisin
question.Itissufficientifakindofnoticeisprovidedbywhichitisreasonablyprobablethat
thepartyproceededagainstwillbeapprisedofwhatisgoingonagainsthim,andan
opportunityaffordedhimtodefend."
ThesamelanguageisusedinWesterveltv.Gregg,12id.202,andinCampbellv.Evans,
45id.356.Campbellv.EvansandTheEmpireCityBankarecasesnotofproceedings
againstpropertytoenforcealienorclaim,but,ineachofthem,apersonaljudgmentin
damageswasrenderedagainstthepartycomplaining.
Itisundoubtedlytrue,that,inmanycaseswherethequestionrespectingdueprocessoflaw
hasarisen,thecaseinhandwasthatofaproceedinginrem.Itistruealso,asisasserted,
thattheprocessofaStatecannotbesupposedtorunbeyonditsownterritory.Itisequally
true,however,that,ineveryinstancewherethequestionhasbeenpresented,thevalidityof
substitutedservice,whichisusedtosubjectpropertywithintheStatebelongingtoa
nonresidenttoajudgmentobtainedbymeansthereofhasbeensustained.Ihavefoundno
caseinwhichitisadjudgedthatastatutemustrequireapreliminaryseizureofsuch
propertyasnecessarytothevalidityoftheproceedingagainstit,orthattheremusthave
beenapreviousspecificlienuponitthatis,Ihavefoundnocasewheresuchhasbeenthe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

27/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

judgmentofthecourtuponfactsmakingnecessarythedecisionofthepoint.Onthe
contrary,inthecaseoftheattachmentlawsofNewYorkandofNewJersey,which
distributeallofthenonresident'sproperty,notmerelythatleviedonbytheattachment,and
inseveralofthereportedcasesalreadyreferredto,wherethejudgmentwassustained,
neitherofthesepreliminaryfactsexisted.
ThecaseofGalpinv.Page,reportedin18Wall.350andagainin3Sawyer93,iscitedin
hostilitytotheviewsIhaveexpressed.Theremaybegeneralexpressionswhichwilljustify
Page95U.S.744
thissuggestion,butthejudgmentisinharmonywiththoseprinciples.Inthecaseas
reportedinthisCourt,itwasheldthatthetitleofthepurchaserunderadecreeagainsta
nonresidentinfantwasinvalid,fortworeasons:1st,thattherewasnojurisdictionofthe
proceedingunderthestatuteofCalifornia,onaccountoftheentireabsenceofanaffidavitof
nonresidence,andofdiligentinquiryfortheresidenceofthedebtor2d,theabsenceofany
orderforpublicationinEaton'scasebothofwhichareconditionsprecedenttothe
jurisdictionofthecourttotakeanyactiononthesubject.Thetitlewasheldvoid,also,for
thereasonthatthedecreeunderwhichitwasobtainedhadbeenreversedintheState
court,andthetitlewasnottakenatthesale,norheldthenbyapurchaseringoodfaith,the
purchasebeingmadebyoneoftheattorneysinthesuit,andthetitlebeingtransferredto
hislawpartnerafterthereversalofthedecree.Thecourtheldthattherewasafailureof
jurisdictioninthecourtunderwhichtheplaintiffclaimedtitle,andthathecouldnotrecover.
ThelearnedjusticewhodeliveredtheopinionintheCircuitCourtandinthisCourtexpressly
affirmstheauthorityofaStateoverpersonsnotonly,butpropertyaswell,withinitslimits,
andthisbymeansofasubstitutedservice.Thejudgmentsoobtained,heinsists,can
properlybeusedasameansofreachingpropertywithintheState,whichisthusbrought
underthecontrolofthecourtandsubjectedtoitsjudgment.Thisistheprecisepointin
controversyinthepresentaction.
ThecaseofCooperv.Reynolds,10Wall.308,iscitedforthesamepurpose.There,the
judgmentofthecourtbelow,refusingtogiveeffecttoajudgmentobtaineduponanorderof
publicationagainstanonresident,wasreversedinthisCourt.Thesuitwascommenced,or
immediatelyaccompanied(itisnotclearwhich),byanattachmentwhichwasleviedupon
therealestatesold,andfortherecoveryofwhichthisactionwasbrought.ThisCourt
sustainedthetitlefoundeduponthesuitcommencedagainstthenonresidentby
attachment.Intheopiniondeliveredinthatcase,theremayberemarks,bywayofargument
orillustration,tendingtoshowthatajudgmentobtainedinasuitnotcommencedbythelevy
ofanattachmentwillnotgivetitletolandpurchasedunderit.Theyare,
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

28/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Page95U.S.745
however,extrajudicial,thedecisionitselfsustainingthejudgmentobtainedundertheState
statutebypublication.
Websterv.Reid,11How.437,isalsocited.There,theactioninvolvedthetitletocertain
landsintheStateofIowa,beinglandsformerlybelongingtothehalfbreedsoftheSacand
FoxtribesandtitlewasclaimedagainsttheIndianrightunderthestatutesofJune2,1838,
andJanuary,1839.Bythesestatutes,commissionerswereappointedwhowereauthorized
tohearclaimsforaccountsagainsttheIndians,andcommenceactionsforthesame,giving
anoticethereofofeightweeksintheIowa"TerritorialGazette,"andtoenterupjudgments
whichshouldbealienonthelands.Itwasprovidedthatitshouldnotbenecessarytoname
thedefendantsinthesuits,butthewords"ownersofthehalfbreedlandslyinginLee
County"shouldbeasufficientdesignationofthedefendantsinsuchsuitsanditprovided
thatthetrialsshouldbebythecourt,andnotbyajury.Itwillbeobservedthatthelands
werenotonlywithinthelimitsoftheterritoryofIowa,butthatalltheIndianswhoweremade
defendantsunderthenamementionedwerealsoresidentsofIowa,and,foraughtthat
appearstothecontrary,oftheverycountyofLeeinwhichtheproceedingwastaken.
Nonresidencewasnotafactinthecase.Moreover,theywereIndians,and,presumptively,
notcitizensofanyState,andthejudgmentsunderwhichthelandsweresoldwererendered
bythecommissionersfortheirownservicesundertheact.
Thecourtfoundabundantreasons,sixinnumber,forrefusingtosustainthetitlethus
obtained.TheactwasapparentlyanattemptdishonestlytoobtaintheIndiantitle,andnot
intendedtogiveasubstitutionforapersonalservicewhichwouldbelikely,orwas
reasonablydesigned,toreachthepersonstobeaffected.
ThecaseofVoorheesv.Jackson,10Pet.449,affirmedthetitleleviedundertheattachment
lawsofOhio,andlaiddowntheprincipleofassumingthatallhadbeenrightlydonebya
courthavinggeneraljurisdictionofthesubjectmatter.
InCooperv.Smith,25Iowa,269,itissaidthatwherenoprocessisservedonthe
defendant,norpropertyattached,norgarnisheecharged,norappearanceentered,a
judgmentbased
Page95U.S.746
onapublicationofthependencyofthesuitwillbevoid,andmaybeimpeached,collaterally
orotherwise,andformsnobartoarecoveryinoppositiontoit,noranyfoundationforatitle
claimedunderit.Thelanguageisverygeneral,andgoesmuchbeyondtherequirementof
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

29/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thecase,whichwasanappealfromapersonaljudgmentobtainedbypublicationagainst
thedefendant,andwhere,asthecourtsay,thepetitionwasnotproperlyverified.Allthatthe
courtdecidedwasthatthisjudgmentshouldbereversed.Thisisquiteadifferentquestion
fromtheonebeforeus.Titlesobtainedbypurchaseatasaleuponanerroneousjudgment
aregenerallygood,althoughthejudgmentitselfbeafterwardsreversed.McGoonv.Scales,
9Wall.311.
InDarrancev.Preston,18Iowa,396,thedistinctionispointedoutbetweenthevalidityofa
judgmentastotheamountrealizedfromthesaleofpropertywithinthejurisdictionofthe
courtanditsvaliditybeyondthatamount.Picquetv.Swan,5Mas.35Bissellv.Briggs,9
Mass.462Ewerv.Coffin,1Cush.(Mass.)23,arecited,butneitheroftheminitsfacts
touchesthequestionbeforeus.
InDrakeonAttachment,theruleislaiddowninverygenerallanguagebutnoneofthe
casescitedbyhimwillcontrolthepresentcase.Theyarethefollowing:
Eatonv.Bridger,33N.H.228,wasdecideduponthepeculiartermsoftheNewHampshire
statute,whichforbidstheentryofajudgmentunlessthedebtorwasservedwithprocess,or
actuallyappearedandansweredinthesuit.Thecourtsaythejudgmentwas"notonly
unauthorizedbylaw,butrenderedinviolationofitsexpressprovisions."
Johnsonv.Dodgewasaproceedinginthesameactiontoobtainareversalonappealofthe
generaljudgment,anddidnotariseuponacontestforpropertysoldunderthejudgment.
Carletonv.WashingtonInsuranceCo.,35id.162,andBrucev.Cloutman,45id.37,areto
thesameeffectanduponthesamestatute.
Smithv.McCutchen,38Mo.415,wasamotionintheformersuittosetasidetheexecution
byagarnishee,anditwasheldthatthestatutewasintendedtoextendtothatclassof
cases.Abbottv.Shepard,44id.273,istothesameeffect,andisbaseduponSmithv.
McCutchen,supra.
Page95U.S.747
So,inEastmanv.Wadleigh,65Me.251,thequestionaroseindebtonthejudgment,not
uponaholdingoflandpurchasedunderthejudgment.Itwasdecidedupontheexpress
languageofthestatuteofMaine,stronglyimplyingthepowerofthelegislaturetomakeit
otherwise,hadtheysochosen.
Itissaidthatthecasewhereapreliminaryseizurehasbeenmade,andjurisdictionthereby
conferred,differsfromthatwherethepropertyisseizedattheendoftheaction,inthis:in
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

30/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thefirstcase,thepropertyissupposedtobesoneartoitsownerthat,ifseizureismadeof
it,hewillbeawareofthefact,andhavehisopportunitytodefend,andjurisdictionofthe
personisthusobtained.This,however,ismatterofdiscretionandofjudgmentonly.Such
seizureisnotinitselfnoticetothedefendant,anditisnotcertainthathewillbythatmeans
receivenotice.Adoptedasameansofcommunicatingit,andalthoughaverygoodmeans,
itisnottheonlyone,nornecessarilybetterthanapublicationofthependencyofthesuit,
madewithanhonestintentiontoreachthedebtor.Whoshallassumetosaytothe
legislaturethat,ifitauthorizesaparticularmodeofgivingnoticetoadebtor,itsactionmay
besustained,but,ifitadoptsanyorallothers,itsactionisunconstitutionalandvoid?The
ruleisuniversalthatmodes,means,questionsofexpediencyornecessityareexclusively
withinthejudgmentofthelegislature,andthatthejudiciarycannotreviewthem.Thishas
beensoheldinrelationtoabankoftheUnitedStates,tothelegaltenderact,andtocases
arisingunderotherprovisionsoftheConstitution.
InJarvisv.Barrett,14Wis.591,suchistheholding.Thecourtsay:
"Theessentialfactonwhichthepublicationismadetodependispropertyofthedefendant
intheState,andnotwhetherithasbeenattached....Thereisnomagicaboutthewrit[of
attachment]whichshouldmakeittheexclusiveremedy.Thesamelegislativepowerwhich
deviseditcandevisesomeother,anddeclarethatitshallhavethesameforceandeffect.
Theparticularmeanstobeusedarealwayswithinthecontrolofthelegislature,sothatthe
endbenotbeyondthescopeoflegislativepower."
Ifthelegislatureshallthinkthatpublicationanddepositinthepostofficearelikelytogive
thenotice,thereseemstobe
Page95U.S.748
nothinginthenatureofthingstopreventtheiradoptioninlieuoftheattachment.Thepoint
ofpowercannotbethuscontrolled.
ThataStatecansubjectlandwithinitslimitsbelongingtononresidentownerstodebtsdue
toitsowncitizensasitcanlegislateuponallotherlocalmattersthatitcanprescribethe
modeandprocessbywhichitistobereachedseemstomeveryplain.
IamnotwillingtodeclarethatasovereignStatecannotsubjectthelandwithinitslimitsto
thepaymentofdebtsduetoitscitizens,orthatthepowertodosodependsuponthefact
whetheritsstatuteshallauthorizethepropertytobelevieduponatthecommencementof
thesuitoratitstermination.Thisisamatterofdetail,andIamofopinionthat,ifreasonable
noticebegiven,withanopportunitytodefendwhenappearanceismade,thequestionof
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

31/35

1/20/2016

Pennoyerv.Neff::95U.S.714(1878)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

powerwillbefullysatisfied.
Disclaimer:OfficialSupremeCourtcaselawisonlyfoundintheprintversionoftheUnited
StatesReports.Justiacaselawisprovidedforgeneralinformationalpurposesonly,and
maynotreflectcurrentlegaldevelopments,verdictsorsettlements.Wemakenowarranties
orguaranteesabouttheaccuracy,completeness,oradequacyoftheinformationcontained
onthissiteorinformationlinkedtofromthissite.Pleasecheckofficialsources.

Contributors
ChrisSkelton
MountainView,CA

Pennoyerv.Neff
PrimaryHolding
Personaljurisdictionoveranonresidentinastatemaynotbeachievedthroughserviceby
publicat...
Facts
MitchellsuedNeffforlegalfeesthatNeffallegedlyowedtohim.Theactionwasbroughtin
Oregon,...
Readthefullannotationsforthiscase.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/case.html

32/35