York v. State of Texas

Decision Date03 November 1890
Citation34 L.Ed. 604,137 U.S. 15,11 S.Ct. 9
PartiesYORK v. STATE OF TEXAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On the 14th day of November, 1888, a personal judgment was rendered in the district court of Travis county, Tex against the plaintiff in error, which judgment was subsequently affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 11 S. W. Rep. 869. Error is now alleged in this: that the district court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The record discloses that on October 20, 1885, the defendant leased from the state certain school lands, at a stipulated rental. The lease provided that in all suits thereunder the venue should be laid in Travis county, Tex. The state filed its petition on February 15, 1888, alleging nonpayment of the rent due in 1886 and 1887. The defendant being a non-resident, a citizen of St. Louis, Mo., a notice in accordance with the provisions of the statute was served upon him personally in that city. No question is made but that the service was in strict conformity with the letter of the statute. On March 9, 1888, the defendant appeared by his counsel, and filed a special plea, challenging the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that he was a non-resident and had not been served personally with process within the limits of the state. This plea was overruled. Thereafter, and on the 5th day of October, 1888, the defendant appeared by his attorneys in open court, demanded a jury, paid the jury fee, and had the cause transferred to the jury docket. On the 6th day of October he again filed a plea to the jurisdiction, on the same ground, which was also overruled. On the 14th day of November, when the cause was reached and called for trial, he again appeared by by his attorneys, waived his right of trial by a jury and his demand of a jury, and declined to further answer to the cause, relying solely upon his plea to the jurisdiction. The court thereupon proceeded to render judgment against him, which, as heretofore stated, was affirmed by the supreme court.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 16-19 intentionally omitted] J. S. Hogg, Atty. Gen. Tex., for the State.

BREWER, J.

It was conceded by the district and the supreme courts that the service upon the defendant in St. Louis was a nullity, and gave the district court no jurisdiction; but it was held that, under the peculiar statutes of the state of Texas, the appearance for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction was a voluntary appearance, which brought the defendant into court. Plaintiff in error equestions this construction of the Texas statutes; but, inasmuch as the supreme court, the highest court of the state, has so construed them, such construction must be accepted here as correct, and the only question we can consider is as to the power of the state in respect thereto. It must be conceded that such statutes contravene the estab- lished rule elsewhere, a rule which also obtained in Texas at an earlier day, to-wit, that an appearance which, as expressed, is solely to challenge the jurisdiction is not a general appearance in the cause, and does not waive the illegality of the service, or submit the party to the jurisdiction of the court. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476; Raquet v. Nixon, Dall. Dig. 386; Dewitt v. Monroe, 20 Tex. 289; Hagood v. Dial, 43 Tex. 626; Robinson v. Schmidt, 48 Tex. 19. The difference between the present rule in Texas and elsewhere is simply this: Elsewhere the defendant may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • Mabee v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 14, 1915
    ...S. W. 869 (1889), adhering to Pennoyer v. Neff, but construing our statutes relative to appearance and answer; also York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed. 604. In Wilson v. Zeigler, supra, wherein Wilkinson had been cited by publication only, the trial court "Wilkinson being ......
  • Works v. George B. Swift Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 31, 1913
    ...Wall. 58, 22 L. Ed. 70;Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 23 L. 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. 3......
  • Alton v. Alton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 15, 1953
    ...drastic than this provision is the legislation approved as consistent with due process by the Supreme Court in York v. State of Texas, 1890, 137 U.S. 15, 11 S.Ct. 9, 34 L.Ed. 604, under which a defendant could not even appear to challenge the jurisdiction of a court without submitting fully......
  • Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Same 12 8212 17, 1938
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1938
    ...process does not require an opportunity to be heard before judgment, if defenses may be presented upon appeal. York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15, 20, 21, 11 S.Ct. 9, 10, 34 L.Ed. 604; American Surety Company v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 168, 53 S.Ct. 98, 102, 77 L.Ed. 231, 86 A.L.R. 298; Moore Ice Cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 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
    ...714, 719 (1878). (84.) See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) (allowing a direct attack on personal jurisdiction). (85.) See York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15, 16-21 (1890) (holding that a Texas rule requiring a defendant to submit to state-court jurisdiction "if he asks the court to determine any qu......
  • Federal jurisdiction and due process in the era of the nationwide class action.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 156 No. 6, June 2008
    • June 1, 2008
    ...may exact as the condition of opening its courts to the plaintiff. Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 67-68 (1938). (129) See York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15, 20-21 (1890) (ruling that a state may adopt a system that declines to offer the opportunity to make a special appearance and treats even an ap......
  • Pleading and Challenging Long Arm Jurisdiction in the Colorado Courts
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 7-10, October 1978
    • Invalid date
    ...but by the affidavits and exhibits presented with the motions and in opposition thereto. (495 F.2d at 259-260.) 26. In York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15 (1890), the United States Supreme Court considered a Texas statute which provided that any appearance by a defendant, even if solely to challenge......

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