Pennoyer v.

Neff (Supreme Court 1877)

Facts: In 1865 Mitchell sued Neff in Oregon over an unpaid legal services bill for $253.14. Neff from
California, but owned property in Oregon, the address of which could not be produced by Mitchell.
Because Neffs address unknown, the court served Neff notice by circulating a notice in a generally
circulated paper. Neff did not answer and Mitchell received a summary judgment. One month later Neff
purchased land in Oregon and Mitchell executed against that land, buying it for $341.60, and transferred
the title to Pennoyer. Eight years later, Neff sued Pennoyer in Federal Court because he claimed the land
was worth $15,000. Neffs claim was based on a provision in the Code of Oregon that stated that no
natural person is subject to the courts of the state unless they appeared in court, was physically in the
state, was a resident of the state, or had property within the stateat the time of the assessment of
jurisdiction. Neff thus argued that the property seized had not been in his possession at the time of the
original suit by Mitchell and therefore was not under the courts jurisdiction to seize in the first place.
Procedural History:
Issue: Did the Oregon Circuit Court have jurisdiction to seize Neffs land and give it to Mitchell? Does a
state have the right to dispose of property if a) the owner of the property has not been personally
notified or b) that property was purchased after a decision was reached by the court?
Holding: No, service of process by publication when an action is brought against non-residents does not
constitute effectual service and therefore due process was violated. In the second aspect, the property
was seized in the enforcement of a personal judgment which had no relation to the particular property
and the judgment had been made prior to the defendants purchase of the property, so it is out of the
courts jurisdiction.
Rationale:
Precedent:
o Law of States
States are not in every respect independent, however, except as restrained by
the national constitution, they have the authority of independent states.
Central to this is the fact that every state possesses exclusive
jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its
territory.
The State has the power to determine the civil rights of the people living
within it, the nature of their contracts, the manner in which obligations
will be enforced and the manner and conditions under which property
may be transferred or enjoyed.
No state may exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over a person or property
that is not situated within its territory.
States may compel individuals within their borders to transfer property not
within the states borders based on judgments made by the states tribunals.
Likewise, States may dispose of property as their tribunals see fit that is owned
by individuals not presently within the States borders if the property itself is
within those bounds.
The Fourteenth Amendment directly questions the Courts ability to enforce
judgments lacking personal service of notification, as notification is required for
due process of law.
Social Policy:
o Every state owes protection to its own citizens, and when non-residents deal with
people from within the state, then it is a legitimate exercise of the states authority to
satisfy the claims of its citizens through property seizure if necessary.
o If the non-resident has no property within the state then there is nothing the tribunal
can do.
Notice served by publication to absent parties (in a newspaper or otherwise) is
not sufficient, as the enforcement of such cases would invite fraud.
This type of notice may be considered sufficient for notifying a resident that a
proceeding is taking place, but is absolutely ineffectual for a party who is out of
the State.
o The law sees the seizure of property as another method of notification, as property is
assumed to always be in the possession of its owner, and the deprivation of a piece of
property should prompt an individual to inquire as to the proceedings against them.
o The decision of jurisdiction by a States court cannot be made after the case has been
tried and judgment rendered. If the judgment has been voided it cannot be validated by
the discovery of property owned by the defendant or that individuals purchasing of
property.
A judgment cannot be valid if property is found and void if it is not.
o
Dissenting Opinion: