__Pennoyer (appellant) v. Neff (appellee)
95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714 • 1877__
Facts:
An Oregon state court authorized the sale of appellee (past plaintiff) Neff’s land to appellant (past defendant) Pennoyer to satisfy a previous judgment.
Neff had been living in another state, he was served by publication, and the judgment against him was entered upon his default.
Procedure:
Neff brought an action of ejectment against Pennoyer in a federal court in Oregon. The court found in favor of Neff.
Pennoyer has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue:
Was the Oregon state court acting within its authority when it authorized the sale of a nonresident’s land to satisfy an in-personam default judgment entered as a result of service by publication?
Holding:
No.
Service of nonresidents by publication is effectual only when the judgment is sought as a means of reaching the property owned by the defendant within the state.
That is, this kind of service is only sufficient where the action is in the nature of an in-rem proceeding.
Reasoning:
The judgment against Neff entered by the Oregon state court was void because Neff was never personally served and because he did not appear and because the land in question cannot be attached to such a case except by a proceeding in rem, which this was not.
The above is sound because of two well-established principles of public law:
(1) Every state has jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.
(2) Therefore it is wrong for a state to exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over a person or property not within its territory. No court can extend its process across state lines.
It is not just to enter judgments without personal service because doing so would lead down a slippery slope. These would be instruments of fraud and oppression.
Thus we see that the Oregon state court erred in authorizing the sale of Neff’s land and so it is still rightfully his.
95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714 • 1877__
Facts:
An Oregon state court authorized the sale of appellee (past plaintiff) Neff’s land to appellant (past defendant) Pennoyer to satisfy a previous judgment.
Neff had been living in another state, he was served by publication, and the judgment against him was entered upon his default.
Procedure:
Neff brought an action of ejectment against Pennoyer in a federal court in Oregon. The court found in favor of Neff.
Pennoyer has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue:
Was the Oregon state court acting within its authority when it authorized the sale of a nonresident’s land to satisfy an in-personam default judgment entered as a result of service by publication?
Holding:
No.
Service of nonresidents by publication is effectual only when the judgment is sought as a means of reaching the property owned by the defendant within the state.
That is, this kind of service is only sufficient where the action is in the nature of an in-rem proceeding.
Reasoning:
The judgment against Neff entered by the Oregon state court was void because Neff was never personally served and because he did not appear and because the land in question cannot be attached to such a case except by a proceeding in rem, which this was not.
The above is sound because of two well-established principles of public law:
(1) Every state has jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.
(2) Therefore it is wrong for a state to exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over a person or property not within its territory. No court can extend its process across state lines.
It is not just to enter judgments without personal service because doing so would lead down a slippery slope. These would be instruments of fraud and oppression.
Thus we see that the Oregon state court erred in authorizing the sale of Neff’s land and so it is still rightfully his.