Hess v. Pawloski

• Decision Date: 16 May 1927
• Docket Number: No. 263,263
• Citation: Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927)
• Parties: HESS v. PAWLOSKI
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

274 U.S. 352

47 S.Ct. 632

71 L.Ed. 1091

HESS

v PAWLOSKI.

No. 263.

Argued April 18, 1927.

Decided May 16, 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 BUTLERdelivered 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 byStat. 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. Farson, 248 U. S. 289, 39 S. Ct. 97, 63 L. Ed. 250.The power of a state to exclude foreign corporations, although not absolute, but qualified, is the...