Pennoyer v. Neff
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 565,95 U.S. 714 |
| Parties | PENNOYER v. NEFF |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon.
This action was brought by Neff against Pennoyer for the recovery of a tract of land situated in Multnomah County, Oregon. Pennoyer, in his answer, denied Neff's title and right to possession, and set up a title in himself.
By consent of parties, and in pursuance of their written stipulation filed in the case, the cause was tried by the court, and a special verdict given, upon which judgment was rendered in favor of Neff; whereupon Pennoyer sued out this writ of error.
The parties respectively claimed title as follows: Neff, under a patent issued to him by the United States, March 19 1866; and Pennoyer, by virtue of a sale made by the sheriff of said county, under an execution sued out upon a judgment against Neff, rendered Feb. 19, 1866, by the Circuit Court for said county, in an action wherein he was defendant, and J. H. Mitchell was plaintiff. Neff was then a non-resident of Oregon.
In Mitchell v. Neff, jurisdiction of Neff was obtained by service of summons by publication. Pennoyer offered in evidence duly certified copies of the complaint, summons, order for publication of summons, affidavit of service by publication, and the judgment in that case; to the introduction of which papers the plaintiff objected, because, 1, said judgment is in personam, and appears to have been given without the appearance of the defendant in the action, or personal service of the summons upon him, and while he was a non-resident of the State, and is, therefore, void; 2, said judgment is not in rem, and, therefore, constitutes no ba is of title in the defendant; 3, said copies of complaint, &c., do not show jurisdiction to give the judgment alleged, either in rem or personam; and, 4, it appears from said papers that no proof of service by publication was ever made, the affidavit thereof being made by the 'editor' of the 'Pacific Christian Advocate,' and not by 'the printer, or his foreman or principal clerk.' The court admitted the evidence subject to the objections.
The finding of the court in regard to the facts bearing upon the asserted jurisdiction of the State court is as follows:——
That on Nov. 13, 1865, Mitchell applied to said Circuit Court, upon his own affidavit of that date, for an order allowing the service of the summons in said action to be made upon Neff, by publication thereof; whereupon said court made said order, in the words following: 'Now, at this day, comes the plaintiff in his proper person, and by his attorneys, Mitchell and Dolph, and files affidavit of plaintiff, and motion for an order of publication of summons, as follows, to wit: 'Now comes the plaintiff, by his attorneys, and upon the affidavit of plaintiff, herewith filed, moves the court for an order of publication of summons against defendant, as required by law, he being a non-resident;' and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant cannot, after due diligence, be found in this State, and that he is a non-resident thereof, that his place of residence is unknown to plaintiff, and cannot, with reasonable diligence, be ascertained by him, and that the plaintiff has a cause of action of action against defendant, and that defendant has property in this county and State, it is ordered and adjudged by the court that service of the summons in this action be made by publication for six weeks successively in the 'Pacific Christian Advocate,' a weekly newspaper published in Multnomah County, Oregon, and this action is continued for such service.' That the affidavit of plaintiff, referred to in said order, is in the words following: 'I, J. H. Mitchell, being first duly sworn, say that the defendant, Marcus Neff, is a non-resident of this State; that he resides somewhere in the State of California, at what place affiant knows not, and he cannot be found in this State; that plaintiff has a just cause of action against defendant for a money-demand on account; that this court has jurisdiction of such action; that the defendant has property in this county and State.' That the complaint in said action was verified and filed on Nov. 3, 1865, and contained facts tending to prove that at that date said Mitchell had a cause of action against said Neff for services as an attorney, performed 'between Jan. 1, 1862, and May 15, 1863.' That the entry of judgment in said action contained the following averments: 'And it appearing to the court that the defendant was, at the time of the commencement of this action, and ever since has been, a non-resident of this State; and it further appearing that he has property in this State, and that defendant had notice of the pendency of this action by publication of the summons for six successive weeks in the 'Pacific Christian Advocate,' a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in Multnomah County, State of Oregon, the last issue of which was more than twenty days before the first day of this term.' That the affidavit showing the publication of the summons in the 'Advocate' aforesaid was made as stated therein by the 'editor' of that paper. That said complaint, summons, affidavit of Mitchell and of the 'editor' of the 'Advocate' aforesaid, and entry of judgment, were in the judgment roll, made up by the clerk in the case, but the order for publication of the summons aforesaid was not placed in said roll by said clerk, but remains on the files of said court; and that when said court made said order for publication, and gave said judgment against Neff, the only evidence it had before it to prove the facts necessary to give it jurisdiction therefor, and particularly to authorize it to find and state that Neff's residence was unknown to Mitchell, and could not, with reasonable diligence, be ascertained by him, and that Neff had notice of the pendency of said action by the publication of the summons as aforesaid, was, so far as appears by the said roll and the records and files of the said court, the said complaint and affidavits of Mitchell and the editor of the 'Advocate.'
The statute of Oregon at the time of the commencement of the suit against Neff was as follows——
'SECT. 5. When service of the summons cannot be made as prescribed in the last preceding section, and the defendant, after due diligence, cannot be found within the State, and when that fact appears, by affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, or justice in an action in a justice's court, and it also appears that a cause of action exists against the defendant, or that he is a proper party to an action relating to real property in this State, such court or judge or justice may grant an order that the service be made by publication of summons in either of the following cases: . . .
'3. When the defendant is not a resident of the State, but has property therein, and the court has jurisdiction of the subject of the action.
'.
'.
'
Mr. W. F. Trimble for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. James K. Kelly, contra.
This is an action to recover the possession of a tract of land, of the alleged value of $15,000, situated in the State of Oregon. The plaintiff asserts title to the premises by a patent of the United States issued to him in 1866, under the act of Congress of Sept. 27, 1850, usually known as the Donation Law of Oregon. The defendant claims to have acquired the premises under a sheriff's deed, made upon a sale of the pro erty on execution issued upon a judgment recovered against the plaintiff in one of the circuit courts of the State. The case turns upon the validity of this judgment.
It appears from the record that the judgment was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.S.B. Commodities, Inc. v. Urban Trend (Hk) Ltd.
...Therefore, he saw no reason to independently analyze other contacts the defendant had with the state. The decline of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878), and its power theory of jurisdiction, and the concordant rise in International Shoe and its progeny, merely permitted "min......
-
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
...but that 'we must step from tuft to tuft across the morass.' Hutchinson v. Chase and Cilbert, (2 Cir.) 45 F.2d 139. In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution required a relationship between the State and the pers......
-
State v. Western Union Fin. Services, Inc.
...for determining the constitutionality of the exercise of jurisdiction over persons and things was set forth in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877). Pennoyer held that state courts are constrained in exercising jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment......
-
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation
...(D.Kan.1978), rev'd on other grounds, 611 F.2d 790 (10th Cir. 1979). When jurisdictional analysis revolved around Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto 714, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877), which required that process be served within the forum's territory, consent statutes were necessary to ensure tha......
-
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company And The Potential Rise Of Consent-Based Jurisdiction
...its statute, I believe, in 1978, so it does look unusual." 3 See Mallory, 266 A.3d at 546-47. 4 Id. 5 Id. (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722-24 (1877)). 6 Id. 7 See 326 U.S. 310, 316-17 (1945). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. at 318. 11 Eg. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 119 (2014); e.g. Go......
-
'A Summer Of Change Expected For Manufacturers'
...concept of jurisdiction was quite simple: a state court's jurisdictional power was limited to its physical boundaries. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878). With the expansion of interstate (and ultimately international) commerce, courts began to test the boundaries of jurisdiction by ......
-
Litigation Tourism Lives – Mallory Reversed
...coalition justices did that, in Part IV of the opinion. Not even mentioning that International Shoe had overruled the Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 722 (1878), jurisdictional framework on which Pennsylvania Fire was based, the Mallory plurality found that International Shoe and Pennsylvan......
-
Personal Jurisdiction And Foreign Corporation Registration Statutes: A Purple Haze, But The Sky Is Not Falling
...occurred amid an era of narrow, formalistic personal jurisdiction analysis based on either "presence" or "consent," with Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), being the rule of the day. International Shoe and its progeny created a new personal jurisdiction paradigm that still dominates firs......
-
Personal Jurisdiction and the Fairness Factor(s)
...316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).11. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 292 (1980).12. 95 U.S. 714, 720 (1877).13. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319.14. Id. at 316 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 ......
-
Jurisdiction at Work: Specific Personal Jurisdiction in Flsa Collective Actions After Bristol-myers Squibb
...a Contemporary Approach 19 (5th ed. 2018). The Supreme Court first articulated its concept of personal jurisdiction in Pennoyer v. Neff. 95 U.S. 714 (1877), overruled in part by Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977). 20. Spencer, supra note 19.21. Id. at 44-45 ("States identify the range ......
-
Table of Cases
...aff'd & remanded, 142 Wn.2d 592, 14 P.3d 764 (2000) . . . . . . . 10.04[2]; 12.02[2], [3], [4][b]; 30.03[9][b]; 31.06[2] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565 (1878). . . . . . . . . . . . 14.02[2][c][i]; 14.04[2][b] Pentagram Corp. v. City of Seattle, 28 Wn. App. 219, 622 P.2d 892 (......
-
Too Far from Home: Why Daimlers at Home Standard Does Not Apply to Personal Jurisdiction Challenges in Anti-terrorism Act Cases
...Court in Pennoyer v. Neff first articulated the importance of state sovereignty to a personal jurisdiction analysis. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722-23 (1877).39. 326 U.S. 310 (1945).40. Id. at 320.41. Id.42. Id. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).43. Id. at......