## Facts

- Hyde sued Harkness in the Idaho territorial district court for damages arising from an allegedly malicious and baseless attachment that caused seizure and detention of Hyde’s property.
- The county sheriff served the summons and complaint on Harkness at his residence on the Shoshone Indian Reservation.
- Federal law organizing the Territory of Idaho provided that Indian tribal territory was excluded from the territory’s limits and jurisdiction unless the tribe assented to inclusion.
- A federal treaty with the Shoshone set apart the reservation for the tribe’s exclusive use and restricted unauthorized non-Indians from entering, settling, or residing there.
- Harkness appeared specially to challenge the validity of service and the court’s jurisdiction, arguing service occurred outside the sheriff’s lawful authority and outside territorial jurisdiction.
- The territorial courts overruled the jurisdictional objection; Harkness then answered on the merits, the case proceeded to trial, and judgment was entered for Hyde.
- Harkness sought review, maintaining that the territorial courts never acquired personal jurisdiction due to invalid service.

## Issues

1. Whether a territorial court could acquire personal jurisdiction by serving process on a defendant located within an Indian reservation excluded from the territory’s limits and jurisdiction by federal statute and treaty.
2. Whether a defendant waives an objection to illegal service/personal jurisdiction by first making a special appearance to challenge service, losing that motion, and then answering and defending on the merits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Process from the Idaho territorial district court could not be validly served on a defendant on the Shoshone Reservation because the reservation was outside the territory’s jurisdiction under controlling federal law.
- Harkness did not waive the service defect by specially appearing to challenge service and, after denial, answering on the merits; waiver would occur only if he had first pleaded to the merits without insisting on the jurisdictional objection.

## Legal Principles

- A court does not obtain personal jurisdiction when service of process is made outside the territorial authority of the serving officer and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
- Where federal statute and treaty exclude an Indian reservation from a territory’s limits and jurisdiction absent tribal assent, territorial process cannot be served on the reservation to hale a defendant into territorial court.
- Defects in service used to obtain personal jurisdiction are not waived by a timely special appearance to set aside service, even if the defendant later answers after the motion is denied.
- Waiver of objections to personal jurisdiction/service occurs when the defendant pleads to the merits in the first instance without first raising the jurisdictional defect.

## Conclusion

The Court held that territorial courts could not obtain personal jurisdiction by serving process on a defendant within an Indian reservation excluded from territorial jurisdiction by federal law, and that a defendant preserves objections to illegal service by raising them through special appearance before litigating the merits.


Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476 (1878)