Case
Pennoyer v. Neff
Answer: Pennoyer v. Neff. The Court held that a state court cannot enter a valid in personam judgment against a nonresident served only by publication; to reach a nonresident’s property, the property must be attached at the outset (quasi in rem). The Oregon judgment and sheriff’s sale were void; the case grounded state-court power in territorial sovereignty and enforced limits through Due Process and Full Faith and Credit, with narrow status exceptions. ([law.cornell.edu](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/95/714))
Rule to remember
Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714) established the territorial theory of personal jurisdiction: no binding in personam judgment on a nonresident without in-state service or consent; property-based jurisdiction requires pre-judgment attachment, limiting relief to the res.
Key elements and checks
- Personal jurisdiction requires in-state service, domicile, consent/appearance, or valid property attachment under the then-prevailing territorial view.
- Constructive service by publication is insufficient for personal liability against an out-of-state defendant.
- Quasi in rem requires the property to be attached at the outset; judgment binds only the attached property.
- Limits are enforced through the Due Process Clause and Full Faith and Credit; sister states need not honor void judgments.
- Recognized exceptions include certain status determinations (e.g., ex parte divorce affecting domiciliary status).
- Later cases (e.g., International Shoe; Shaffer) shift to minimum contacts, but transient service and true in rem persist.
In the source’s words
“every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.”
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (LII)
“no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.”
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (LII)
Meaningful state variation: long-arm statutes, service-by-publication prerequisites (e.g., mailing, diligence showings), and attachment procedures differ across jurisdictions; due process supplies a federal floor but state rules may be stricter.