Personal JurisdictionPennoyer v. Neff95 U.S. 714 (1877)

Procedure: This case concerned two lawsuits. The first suit arose from an unpaid legal fee. Mitchell brought suit against Neff in state court for failure to pay a legal fee. According to the court, Neff was a non-resident of the stat who wasnt personally served with process and did not appear. Judgment was entered upon his default in not answering the complaint, upon constructive summons by publication. The second suit arose when Neff brought suit against Pennoyer in federal court to recover the possession of the tract of land, which Pennoyer obtained via a sheriffs deed.

Facts: Neff hired Mitchell, a lawyer living and practicing in Oregon to do some legal work. Neff failed to pay Mitchells fee and Mitchell sued Neff in state court. Judgment was entered in favor of Mitchell due to Neffs failure to answer the complaint. After the default judgment, Neff acquired 300 acres of land in Oregon from the federal government. Mitchell had the sheriff seize the land to satisfy the judgment. Pennoyer purchased the land and received a sheriffs deed as evidence of title and the sale proceeds were turned over to Mitchell. After Neff discovered that his land was sold to Pennoyer, he brought suit to recover the possession of the tract of land.

Issue: Did the court err in ruling against Neff in the first suit because he was a non-resident and did not appear in court? Also did the court err in seizing title of Neffs land?

Law: A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party:1. Is personally served with process while within the state, or 2. Has property within the state, and that property is attached before litigation begins (i.e. quasi in rem jurisdiction).3. Voluntary appearance is deemed as consent to the action. To give such proceedings validity, there must be a competent tribunal to pass on the subject-matter of the suit; and in order to make a determination of the personal liability of defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or by his voluntary appearance.

Reasoning: Since the adoption of the 14th amendment, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process. Due process demands that legal proceedings be conducted according to those rules and principles, which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. To give legal proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal with legal authority to pass judgment, and a defendant must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. The substituted service of process by publication in actions brought against non-residents is valid only where property in the state is brought under the control of the court, and subjected to its disposition by process adapted to that purpose, or where the judgment is sought as a means of reaching such property or affecting some interest therein; in other words, where the action is in the nature of a proceeding in rem. The Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff because he was not served in Oregon. The courts judgment would have been valid if Mitchell had attached Neffs land at the beginning of the suit. Mitchell could not have done this because Neff did not own the land at the time Mitchell initiated the suit. The default judgment was declared invalid. Therefore, the sheriff had no power to auction the real estate and title never passed to Mitchell. Neff was the legal owner.

Holding: Affirmed.