Wilson v. Seligman

Citation36 L.Ed. 338,12 S.Ct. 541,144 U.S. 41
PartiesWILSON v. SELIGMAN
Decision Date14 March 1892
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE GRAY.

This was an action brought by Wilson, a citizen of Missouri, against Seligman, a citizen of New York, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and duly removed by the defendant into the circuit court of the United States. The action was upon an order or judgment of the state court under section 736 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1879, (which is copied in the margin,1) by which execution was awarded against the defendant as a stockholder in the Memphis, Carthage & Northwestern Railroad Company, a corporation of Missouri, upon a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the corporation. The defendant answered, denying that he was a stockholder, and averring that the order or judgment against him was void for want of jurisdiction of his person. The present case was submitted, a jury being duly waived in writing, to the court, which found the following facts:

The plaintiff's judgment against the corporation was recovered in the state court on April 2, 1883, for $72,799.38 and interest. Upon that judgment, executions against the corporation were issued to the sheriffs of the several counties in Missouri through which it had built its road, and were returned unsatisfied; and the corporation was then, and has been ever since, insolvent. On July 9, 1883, the plaintiff filed a motion in the same court for an order that execution for the amount of that judgment issue against the defendant as the alleged holder of stock in the corporation on which more than the amount of the judgment against the corporation was still unpaid. Notice of this motion was served on him personally at his domicile in New York, and was posted in the clerk's office of the state court. No notice was served on him within the state of Missouri, and he never was a citizen or a resident of this state. At the hearing of the motion, on December 3, 1883, the defendant did not appear; and the court entered an order finding that he was a stockholder as alleged, and was liable to execution for the amount of the judgment against the corporation, and granting the motion and ordering execution to issue against him accordingly. This was the order or judgment upon which the present action was brought.

Upon these facts the court below gave judgment for the defendant. 36 Fed. Rep. 154. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

James S. Botsford, for plaintiff in error.

James O. Broadhead and John O'Day, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The statute of Missouri under which these proceedings were had authorizes execution upon a judgment against a corporation to be ordered against any of its stockholders only to the extent of the unpaid balance of their stock, and 'upon motion in open court, after sufficient notice in writing to the person sought to be charged.' Gen. St. Mo. 1865, c. 62, § 11; Rev. St. 1879, § 736; Rev. St. 1889, § 2517. Each person sought to be charged as a stockholder is thus given the right, before execution can be awarded against him on a judgment against the corporation, to written notice and judicial investigation of the questions whether he is a stockholder, and, if he is, how much remains unpaid on his stock. Although the statute does not define the course of proceeding or the kind of notice otherwise than by directing that the proceeding shall be summary, upon motion and 'after sufficient notice in writing to the persons sought to be charged,' there can be no doubt that in this, as in all other cases, in which a personal liability is sought to be enforced by judicial proceedings and after written notice, the notice must be personally served upon the defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of the court by whose order or judgment his personal liability is to be ascertained and fixed, unless he has agreed in advance to accept, or does in fact accept, some other form of service as sufficient.

The general principles applicable to this subject were clearly and exhaustively discussed by this court, speaking by Mr. Justice FIELD, in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, from which it will be sufficient to quote a few sentences: 'Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory,' and 'no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.' Page 722. 'It is in virtue of the state's jurisdiction over the property of the nonresident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into that non-resident's obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property.' Page 723. 'Where the entire object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the defendants,—that is, where the suit is merely in personam, constructive service in this form upon a non-resident is ineffectual for any purpose. Process from the tribunals of one state cannot run into another state, and summon parties there domiciled to leave its territory and respond to proceedings against them. Publication of process or notice within the state where the tribunal sits cannot create any greater obligation upon the nonresident to appear. Process sent to him out of the state, and process published within it, are equally unavailing in proceedings to establish his personal liability.' Page 727. 'A judgment which can be treated in any state of this Union as contrary to the first principles of justice, and as an absolute nullity, because rendered without any jurisdiction of the tribunal over the party, is not entitled to any respect in the state where rendered.' Page 732. 'To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution—that is, by the law of its creation—to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves...

To continue reading

Request your trial
94 cases
  • Smetal Corp. v. West Lake Inv. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 16 Abril 1936
    ...... Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483. See,. also, in this general connection; Pennoyer v. Neff, . 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565; Wilson v. Seligman, 144. U.S. 41, 12 S.Ct. 541, 36 L.Ed. 338; Riverside Cotton. Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 35 S.Ct. 579, 59 L.Ed. 910; Romig v. ......
  • Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 14 Septiembre 1909
    ...collection of execution for unpaid balance due on stock subscriptions from foreign stockholders in a corporation (Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. 541, 36 L. Ed. 338); as to whether recital of settlement of cause in a judgment rested on an unfulfilled promissory agreement (Jaco......
  • Mabee v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 14 Abril 1915
    ...with "nonresident," he evidently went beyond the facts of the case before him, and that, also, was dictum. Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. 541, 36 L. Ed. 338. Under a Missouri statute it was there held that "a notice served in another state upon a person alleged to be a stockh......
  • Works v. George B. Swift Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 31 Enero 1913
    ...Ed. 271;Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565;York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed., 604;Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. 541, 36 L. Ed. 338;McCord Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 97 Fed. 22, 38 C. C. A. 34;Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518-521, 15 Sup. Ct. 559......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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