## Facts

- Simon Alpern sold real estate located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to Charles Coe, an Allegheny County resident.
- Coe took title in the name of his sister, Marie Moody, who lived in West Virginia with her husband, Duard Moody.
- Alpern filed a bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against Coe and the Moodys, alleging that the title arrangement was fraudulent.
- Alpern sought equitable relief to impose a constructive trust on the Allegheny County property and to obtain reconveyance consistent with that trust.
- The trial court issued a special order permitting service on the nonresident Moodys in West Virginia under the Act of Apr. 6, 1859, P.L. 387, as amended (commonly cited at 12 P.S. § 1254).
- The Moodys were served in West Virginia and appeared specially to challenge the court’s power over them, contending the suit required in personam jurisdiction and could not proceed based on out-of-state service.
- The Court of Common Pleas denied the Moodys’ request to vacate service and dismiss the bill as to them.
- The Moodys appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from that interlocutory order, presenting the jurisdiction question.

## Issues

1. Whether a Pennsylvania court of equity may proceed, on extraterritorial service under the Act of Apr. 6, 1859, in a suit seeking to impose a constructive trust and affect title to Pennsylvania land when record owners are nonresidents.
2. Whether the requested relief (including a direction that nonresident defendants convey the land) makes the action purely in personam so that Pennsylvania lacks jurisdiction without personal service within the Commonwealth.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order refusing to vacate the Moodys’ service and dismiss the bill as to them.
- The Court held the bill was directed to determining interests in land located in Pennsylvania and therefore could proceed as an in rem (or quasi in rem) equity matter.
- The Court held the Act of Apr. 6, 1859 authorizes a Pennsylvania equity court, in a suit concerning land within its territorial jurisdiction, to order service on defendants who reside outside the Commonwealth and to proceed as if service had been made within Pennsylvania.
- The Court rejected the argument that the inclusion of a requested conveyance necessarily turned the case into an in personam action that the court could not entertain against nonresidents.
- The Court reasoned that Pennsylvania’s control over land within its borders permits effective equitable relief affecting title or interests in that land, consistent with accepted conflict-of-laws rules recognizing a state’s authority over land located within the state.

## Legal Principles

- A Pennsylvania equity court may exercise jurisdiction over interests in Pennsylvania real estate in a suit whose main object is to determine or enforce rights in that land, even when some defendants are nonresidents.
- Under the Act of Apr. 6, 1859 (and related statutory equity grants), a court may authorize service of process on out-of-state defendants in suits concerning land within the court’s territorial jurisdiction and may proceed after such service as if the defendants were served in Pennsylvania.
- The fact that equitable relief may include an order that defendants execute a deed does not, by itself, prevent the court from treating the action as directed to the land and the parties’ claimed interests in it.
- Pennsylvania courts are not without means to make decrees effective as to in-state land; the court’s power over the res supports relief affecting title and equitable interests, even if personal coercion of out-of-state defendants is limited.

## Conclusion

Alpern v. Coe holds that where an equity action seeks to impose a constructive trust and adjust rights in Pennsylvania land, the court may proceed on extraterritorial service upon nonresident defendants under the Act of 1859 because the case is directed to the land within Pennsylvania and the decree may operate on the property interest rather than depend on general personal jurisdiction over the nonresidents.


Alpern v. Coe, 352 Pa. 208 (1945)