Pennoyer v Neff case brief + full opinion

here you will see the Pennoyer v Neff case brief.

Pennoyer v Neff case is commonly taught in civil procedure classes at law schools.

The decision in the Pennoyer v Neff case is a seminal example of early jurisdictional jurisprudence, even if experts debate about how much federal legal practice is still influenced by its decision it laid down the foundation for the complex common law of personal jurisdiction.

Here I will share with you the Pennoyer v Neff case brief to help you understand everything you need to know about the Pennoyer v Neff case in a simple and accurate way.

Interested in learning how to write your own case brief? learn here or you may check these case brief templates.

Let’s get started

Pennoyer v Neff case brief

Sylvester Pennoyer v. Marcus Neff 95 U.S. 714 (1877)

Decided January 21, 1878

by

Justice Field

Parties

Sylvester Pennoyer is an Appellant while  Marcus Neff is a respondent.

Procedural History

Respondent was sued by his attorney in Circuit Court of Multnomah County for the recovery of the dept. Respondent did not appear on that lawsuit as he was moved from Oregon to California, consequently, his attorney won and the Respondent’s land was sold to Appellant herein to pay off the debt.

Respondent returned to Oregon and sued the Appellant in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon for the recovery of land which he successfully evicted the Appellant.

Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and lost the case.

Facts

Respondent was sued by his attorney,  John H. Mitchell in Oregon for unpaid legal fees.

The Respondent was already moved to California and non-resident of the Oregon state at the time of the suit and had not been physically served with the process.  Mitchel used a newspaper to serve the court process to the Respondent.

Despite the fact that Respondent was not personally served with process and was not a resident of Oregon, a default judgment was entered against him for his failure to appear in court or otherwise contest the litigation.

Mitchell thereafter attached land owned by Defendant in Oregon and had it sold to Plaintiff Pennoyer through a Sheriff’s sale in an attempt to pay on his execution of judgment.

After 8 years the Respondent returned to Oregon, sued the Appellant, and recovered the land.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, hence this Appeal.

Issue

Is it possible for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who was not personally served with process within the state but was served via newspaper publication?

Rule

Court applied the rule from the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution which is to the effect that no personal jurisdiction can be had over defendants who are physically absent from the state or have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was hinged on the “Field theory” of state-court jurisdiction.

Through that theory, the court reasoned that every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory

Further, no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property outside its territory.

Therefore it was invalid for the Oregon state court to exercise jurisdiction over California’s individual.

Holding

No, it is not possible for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who was not personally served with process within the state but was served via a newspaper publication.

Judgment

The decision of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County was declared invalid, and the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon was affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Hunt dissented from the opinion and judgment of the court on the reason that the judgment of the court differs from the well-established principles of property law and that he is not willing to declare that a sovereign State cannot subject the land within its borders to the payment of debts owed to its citizens, or that the power to do so is contingent on whether the suit’s statute authorizes the property to be levied upon at the outset or at the end.

Hunt is of the opinion that the court should have jurisdiction over a matter of this nature when reasonable notice is given and an appearance is made.

The whole background of the case is funny, do not miss it! read the case background here or read the full judgment here

other case briefs to read

• Marbury versus Madison case brief
• Lucy v Zehmer case brief
• Hamer v Sidway case brief
• Pierson v Post case brief
• Hawkins v Mcgee case brief
• Tinker v des Moines case brief
• Hadley v Baxendale case brief
• Duncan v Louisiana case brief
• Garrett v Dailey case brief
• Brown v Board of education case brief
• Griswold v Connecticut case brief
• Katz v United States case brief
• Riley v California case brief | United States v. Wurie
• Leonard v Pepsico case brief
• Wickard v Filburn case brief
• District of Columbia v. Heller case brief
• Gonzales v Raich case brief
• Shelley v Kraemer case brief