Pennoyer case brief

Mitchell – Mitchell was an attorney who lived in Oregon. He did work for…

Neff – who didn’t live in Oregon. Neff failed to pay fees to Mitchell, so Mitchell sued him. Neff was served notice of process by printing it in a newspaper in Oregon. He might or might not have been aware that he was being sued, but we presume he probably didn’t read that particular paper, so he probably didn’t know. He never showed up in Oregon or file an answer to the lawsuit or anything like that. “[J]udgement was entered upon his default”. After all this had happened, Neff bought some land in Oregon from the federal government. Mitchell went to the sheriff and was all like, “that bastard, we’ve got him now! Seize that land and sell it and give me the money!” It’s implied that the sheriff took the land without going to court to get the land attached. The sheriff sold the land to…

Pennoyer – who got a sheriff’s deed. The sheriff took the money and gave it to Mitchell.

Now, Neff “reappeared”…I don’t know where, but it seems to imply that he returned to Oregon and found out his land had been sold seemingly under his feet (in his absence). So Neff sued Pennoyer to get the land. Neff was all like, “I’ve got this deed from the government, dude!” And Pennoyer was like “Sheriff’s deed! Read ‘em and weep!”

Procedural Posture: Neff sued Pennoyer [thanks to Ashley from U. Miami for spotting the prior error] in federal court, where the lower court found for Neff due to problems in the way the order of publication was obtained and how the publication was proved. The case went to the Supreme Court on appeal from Pennoyer.

Issues: Definitely issues as opposed to issue.

1. Is constructive service by publication legal?2. Does the state of Oregon have jurisdiction in personam over Neff?3. Does the state of Oregon have jurisdiction in rem over Neff, or Neff’s stuff?4. Was it appropriate to sell the property before it was attached (seized)?5. If the first lawsuit cannot be upheld, does the sale of the property to

Pennoyer count?

Rules:

1. A state has exclusive jurisdiction over people and property within its borders.

2. No state can exercise jurisdiction over people or property in other states.3. Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not be

upheld.4. Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld.5. The “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution only applies “when

the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter”.

Analysis: The newly enacted Fourteenth Amendment1[1] lets the court question “judgments rendered against non-residents without personal service of process” on a new and different basis: you can’t debate somebody’s rights and duties in a court that doesn’t have jurisdiction over them, because that violates due process of law.

Conclusion: The original verdict of Mitchell v. Neff was invalid because the state of Oregon did not have jurisdiction in personam over Neff. Therefore, the judgment shouldn’t have happened and the property should have never been sold. Consequently, the court upheld the decision in Neff’s favor.

1