95 U.S. 714 (U.S. Supreme Court 1878)
Pennoyer v. Neff is the canonical starting point for modern American personal jurisdiction doctrine.
May a state court render a valid in personam judgment against a nonresident defendant based solely on service by publication, and can such a judgment support the post-judgment seizure and sale of the defendant's in-state property when the property was not attached at the outset of the suit?
Due process and principles of state territorial sovereignty limit state-court jurisdiction. An in personam judgment against a nonresident is valid only if the defendant is personally served within the forum state or voluntarily appears or otherwise consents to jurisdiction. Service by publication alone is insufficient to support a personal money judgment against a nonresident. A state court may exercise jurisdiction over property within its borders (in rem or quasi in rem), but only if the property is brought under the court's control at the commencement of the action (e.g., by attachment); a later levy cannot cure the absence of jurisdiction. Judgments entered without personal or property-based jurisdiction are void and not entitled to full faith and credit in other courts.
No. The Oregon court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter a money judgment against Neff based solely on publication, and because Neff's property was not attached at the commencement of the action, the court lacked quasi in rem jurisdiction as well. The judgment and the subsequent sheriff's sale were void, so Pennoyer acquired no title to Neff's land.
Pennoyer constitutionalized the distinction between in personam and in rem/quasi in rem jurisdiction and anchored personal jurisdiction in physical presence, consent/appearance, or prior attachment of property. For decades it governed the reach of state courts, shaping service-of-process practice and the recognition of judgments. Although International Shoe later replaced Pennoyer's rigid territorialism with the flexible minimum-contacts standard, and Shaffer required minimum contacts even for quasi in rem cases, Pennoyer remains essential for understanding due process constraints on jurisdiction, the importance of notice, and why judgments entered without jurisdiction are void.