Personal Jurisdiction

Pennoyer v. Nef
95 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 nonresident 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:

Personal Jurisdiction
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.