Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 148 views

    Pennoyer v. Neff

    Uploaded by

    The Law Student
    The case involved a lawsuit filed in Oregon state court by Mitchell against Neff, a non-resident, to collect unpaid legal fees. Neff was not personally served and did not appear. The court entered a default judgment against Neff and his land was seized and sold to Pennoyer. Neff then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court held that the original judgment against Neff was invalid because, as a non-resident who was not served process or appeared, the Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff. For a court to have jurisdiction over a non-resident, their property in the state must be attached before the lawsuit.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pennoyer v. Neff

    Uploaded by

    The Law Student
    148 views2 pages
    The case involved a lawsuit filed in Oregon state court by Mitchell against Neff, a non-resident, to collect unpaid legal fees. Neff was not personally served and did not appear. The court entered a default judgment against Neff and his land was seized and sold to Pennoyer. Neff then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court held that the original judgment against Neff was invalid because, as a non-resident who was not served process or appeared, the Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff. For a court to have jurisdiction over a non-resident, their property in the state must be attached before the lawsuit.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a lawsuit filed in Oregon state court by Mitchell against Neff, a non-resident, to collect unpaid legal fees. Neff was not personally served and did not appear. The court entered a default judgment against Neff and his land was seized and sold to Pennoyer. Neff then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court held that the original judgment against Neff was invalid because, as a non-resident who was not served process or appeared, the Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff. For a court to have jurisdiction over a non-resident, their property in the state must be attached before the lawsuit.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    148 views2 pages

    Pennoyer v. Neff

    Uploaded by

    The Law Student
    The case involved a lawsuit filed in Oregon state court by Mitchell against Neff, a non-resident, to collect unpaid legal fees. Neff was not personally served and did not appear. The court entered a default judgment against Neff and his land was seized and sold to Pennoyer. Neff then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court held that the original judgment against Neff was invalid because, as a non-resident who was not served process or appeared, the Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff. For a court to have jurisdiction over a non-resident, their property in the state must be attached before the lawsuit.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Pennoyer v Neff

    Power, Consent, and Notice - Personal jurisdiction

    Relevant Facts: The consolidation of two actions. One in the OR state cts, the other
    Federal. In the first Mitchell and atty is suing his client, Neff, for unpaid legal fees
    $300. At the time Neff was a “non-resident who was not personally served with process,
    and did not appear.” Default was entered after constructive notice by publication. Neff
    had acquired 300 acres of land and Michell had the sheriff seize and sell the
    land. Pennoyer bought the land and Neff brought the second action forward to recover
    possession of the land.

    Legal Issue(s): Whether judgment for money rendered in the State court of Oregon
    against Neff, then a non-resident of the State, without service of process, or his
    appearance was without any validity, and the authorization of a sale of the property was
    without due process of law?

    Court’s Holding: Yes

    Procedure: By consent of parties, and in pursuance of their written stipulation filed in the
    case, the cause was tried by the court, and a special verdict given, upon which judgment
    was rendered in favor of Neff; whereupon Pennoyer sued out this writ of
    error . Affirmed.

    Law or Rule(s): 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.

    Court Rationale: The property here in controversy sold under the judgment rendered was
    not attached, nor in any way brought under the jurisdiction of the court . Its first
    connection with the case was caused by a levy of the execution. It was not disposed of
    pursuant to any adjudication, but out of a money judgment, having no relation to the
    property, rendered against a non resident w/o service of process or his
    appearance. Publication of process or notice w/ the state where the tribunal sits cannot
    create any greater obligation upon the non resident to appear: Process sent to him out of
    the State, and process published w/i it are equally unavailing. To acquire jurisdiction by
    attachment Oregon would have had to attach the property before the lawsuit. Substituted
    service of process in actions against non residents is effectual only where the property in
    the state is brought under the control of the court and subjected to its disposition by
    process.

    Plaintiff’s Argument: Due process requires either the appearance of df or service of


    process before a judgment can be executed against him.
    Defendant’s Argument: OR state law provides for constructive service of process when
    an action is brought against a non resident and absent df, who has property in the state.

    Constructive Notice - (fictional or pretend) an alternative method of fulfilling the legal


    requirement of service of process, mail, publication, etc.

    You might also like