Pennoyer v. Neff
| Pennoyer v. Neff | |
|---|---|
| Argued October, 1877 Decided January 21, 1878 | |
| Full case name | Sylvester Pennoyer v. Marcus Neff |
| Citations | 95 U.S. 714 (more) 24 L. Ed. 565; 1877 U.S. LEXIS 2227 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon |
| Holding | |
| No personal jurisdiction can be had over defendants who are physically absent from the state or have not consented to the court's jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Field, joined by Waite, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Strong, Bradley, Harlan |
| Dissent | Hunt |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | |
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a state court can only exert personal jurisdiction over a party domiciled out-of-state if that party is served with process while physically present within the state. More importantly, the court imposed a procedural limit on quasi in rem jurisdiction over property located within the state; it would have to be "brought under the control of the court" at the time the suit commenced otherwise quasi in rem jurisdiction would remain unavailable.
The case emerged from a fee dispute between Marcus Neff, a homesteader in the Territory of Oregon, and attorney John H. Mitchell. Neff hired Mitchell to manage his application for a land patent under the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 and Mitchell later accused Neff of failing to pay his fee. Although the existence of the debt was highly suspect, Mitchell successfully obtained a judgment by default and took title to Neff's homestead. Mitchell later assigned the land to Sylvester Pennoyer, future governor of Oregon. Pennoyer held the land for eight years before Neff sought it back. Pennoyer lost in every action against Neff in an attempt to regain his land, including his action in Federal Court which would reach the Supreme Court. Pennoyer was extremely embittered by the process, and carried his hatred for the Supreme Court into his political career. There is speculation that the unethical Mitchell may have falsified the original lawsuit, which may have itself emerged from an illegal deal between Mitchell and Neff. In the end, Pennoyer was left without recourse due to Mitchell's faults, and Neff recovered the land.
The legal issues of the case turned on whether the court in question could extend personal jurisdiction over a defendant who isn't present in the state. Though Neff had settled in Oregon originally, he had allegedly moved to California by the time of the lawsuit. The lower court narrowly ruled in Neff's favor, mostly based on Mitchell's untrustworthiness, but the Supreme Court turned the case into a sweeping treatise on personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's decision laid the groundwork for the complex common law of personal jurisdiction. It has been substantially modified in subsequent decisions, especially International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), but some parts remain. It is frequently taught to first year law students in the study of civil procedure.