HomeMy WebLinkAbout0871 •
t .r
i
i
1
hibited by that document to the states,
nor reserved to the people. The United
States Supreme Court has saids 'The govern-
ments of the States are sovereign within
their territories save only as they are
subject to the prohibitions of the Consti-
tution as their action in some measure
conflicts with powers delegated to the
National Government, or with Congressional
legislation enacted in the exercise of those
powers.'"
During the early period of time that the citizens wanted a ~
weak central government and strong States Rights, out came the land-
mark case on "out of state jurisdiction." Every law student has ~ f
t
c
read Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877), wherein ~
Mitchell, an attorney, sued Pennoyer for legal services of about $300.00
and recovered a judgment. Mitchell levied. on Pennoyer's land in Oregon
and Defendant Neff received a Sheriff's Deed to Pennoyer's land.
Pennoyer sues to recover the land asserting the judgment was void be-
cause no personal service was had upon him--only service by publication.
Oregon had a long arm statute allowing judgment to be entered on
publication against a non-resident absent defendant. The question was
whether or not you had to have. personal service to get a personal (as
distinguished from an in rem) judgment. The United States Supreme
Court held that the state had no authority beyond its borders and to
obtain a valid personal judgment, you must catch the defendant in the
state and serve him personally. (:~o catcheee-no judgment::::) As
mentioned before 90$ of the Americans don't like this (binding???)
precedent unless their ox is the ox being gored::
I
Sixty-eight years later (in the days of the New Deal) the
United States Supreme Court ignored precedent and relaxed this rule
in the case of International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326
U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945), by allowing personal
judgments against an out of state absent defendant if certain MINIMUM
CONTACTS had been made within the state. In this case the Defendant
Shoe Company was a Delaware corporation whose principal place of busi-
f
ness was in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant had eleven or more ~7ashington
State residents selling its shoes in the State of Washington. The
salesmen solicited orders and sent the orders to St. Louis for accept-
-8- Q
?3~r 33o P41t g toS
t , _