Hess v. Pawloski

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation47 S.Ct. 632,71 L.Ed. 1091,274 U.S. 352
Docket NumberNo. 263,263
PartiesHESS v. PAWLOSKI
Decision Date16 May 1927

Messrs. George Gowen Parry, of Philadelphia, Pa., and John L. Hall, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Harry J. Meleski, of Worcester, Mass., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought by defendant in error to recover damages for personal injuries. The declaration alleged that plaintiff in error negligently and wantonly drove a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts, and that by reason thereof the vehicle struck and injured defendant in error. Plaintiff in error is a resident of Pennsylvania. No personal service was made on him, and no property belonging to him was attached. The service of process was made in compliance with chapter 90, General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended by Stat. 1923, c. 431, § 2, the material parts of which follow:

'The acceptance by a nonresident of the rights and privileges conferred by section three or four, as evidence by his operating a motor vehicle thereunder, or the operation by a nonresident of a motor vehicle on a public way in the commonwealth other than under said sections, shall be deemed equivalent to an appointment by such nonresident of the registrar or his successor in office, to be his true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful processes in any action or proceeding against him, growing out of any accident or collision in which said nonresident may be involved while operating a motor vehicle on such a way, and said acceptance or operation shall be a signification of his agreement that any such process against him which is so served shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served on him personally. Service of such process shall be made by leaving a copy of the process with a fee of two dollars in the hands of the registrar, or in his office, and such service shall be sufficient service upon the said nonresident: Provided, that notice of such service and a copy of the process are forthwith sent by registered mail by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant's return receipt and the plaintiff's affidavit of compliance herewith are appended to the writ and entered with the declaration. The court in which the action is pending may order such continuances as may be necessary to afford the defendant reasonable opportunity to defend the action.'

Plaintiff in error appeared specially for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, and filed an answer in abatement and moved to dismiss on the ground that the service of process, if sustained, would deprive him of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court overruled the answer in abatement and denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court held the statute to be a valid exercise of the police power, and affirmed the order. Pawloski v. Hess, 250 Mass. 22, 144 N. E. 760, 35 A. L. R. 945. At the trial the contention was renewed and again denied. Plaintiff in error excepted. The jury returned a verdict for defendant in error. The exceptions were overruled by the Supreme Judicial Court. Pawloski v. Hess, 253 Mass. 478, 149 N. E. 122. Thereupon the superior court entered judgment. The writ of error was allowed by the Chief Justice of that court.

The question is whether the Massachusetts enactment contravenes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The process of a court of one state cannot run into another and summon a party there domiciled to respond to proceedings against him. Notice sent outside the state to a nonresident is unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him personally for money recovery. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 741, 24 L. Ed. 565. There must be actual service within the state of notice upon him or upon some one authorized to accept service for him. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 S. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517. A personal judgment rendered against a nonresident, who has neither been served with process nor appeared in the suit, is without validity. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90, 37 S. Ct. 343, 61 L. Ed. 608, L. R. A. 1917F, 458. The mere transaction of business in a state by nonresident natural persons does not imply consent to be bound by the process of its courts. Flexner v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
674 cases
  • Florence Nightingale School of Nursing, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1959
    ...Free 16 page book Florence Nightingale School of Nursing Room 7R128, 131 S. Wabash Avenue Chicago 3, Ill.'2 See Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091; Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Corp, 116 Vt. 569, 80 A.2d 664, 25 A.L.R.2d 1193; Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143......
  • Mylonakis v. Georgios M.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • December 3, 2012
    ...is most frequently encountered in cases involving torts committed by nonresidents while temporarily in the State. See Hess v. Pawloski, 47 S.Ct. 632 (1927); Elkhart Engineering Corp. v. Dornier Werke, 343 F.2d 861, 868 (5th Cir.1965) ("We therefor hold that Alabama may, consistent with the ......
  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • August 30, 1962
    ...'extend its process beyond that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions.' In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927), the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of a non-resident motorist statute which provided that the m......
  • Cobb v. Department of Public Works, 481.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • July 11, 1932
    ...140, 44 S. Ct. 257, 68 L. Ed. 596. Compare Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 167, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 71 L. Ed. 1091; Clark v. Poor, 274 U. S. 554, 557, 47 S. Ct. 702, 71 L. Ed. 1199. It may, consistently with the federal Constitutio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT AND "CORPORATE TAG JURISDICTION" IN THE PENNOYER ERA.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...(265.) D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 52 U.S. 165, 173 (1850). (266.) See supra notes 225-30 and accompanying text. (267.) E.g., Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 354 (1927) (discussing a Massachusetts nonresident motorist (268.) See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code [section] 410.10 (West 2004); N.Y. C.P.L.R.......
  • This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 37-3, May 2009
    • May 1, 2009
    ...305, 307 (E.D. La. 1926); Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gay, 26 S.W. 599, 609 (Tex. 1894). 49 JAMES & HAZARD, supra note 17, at 70. 50 Id. 51 274 U.S. 352 (1927). 52 Id. at 356–57. 53 Id. at 356. 54 Id. 690 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [37:681 such a dubious distinction as implied consent forecas......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Pretrial Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 5, 2013
    ...(TexApp — San Antonio 2000, pet denied), §9:60 Hertz Corp. v. Friend , 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1194 (2010), §§9:430, 9:434.2 Hess v. Pawloski , 274 US 352 (1927), §8:287 Heth v. Heth, 661 SW2d 303 (TexApp — Fort Worth 1982, writ dism’d woj), §10:128 Hicks v. Sais , 102 SW2d 460 (TexCivApp — Beaumon......
  • Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-3, March 2013
    • March 1, 2013
    ...is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.”). 32. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 356–57 (1927). 33. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). 34. World-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Act 110, SB 588 – Uniform Securities Act of 2005
    • United States
    • South Carolina Session Laws
    • January 1, 2005
    ...This section was originally based on the type of nonresident motorist statute whose constitutionality was sustained in Hess v. Pawlowski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927) and subsequently in other contexts. See, e.g., International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945); Travelers Health Ass'n ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT