## Facts

- Sigmund Einstoss, a New York resident, bought Alaska land in 1951 and operated a salmon cannery; the property was mortgaged and subject to an Alaska franchise-tax lien.
- In 1954, the mortgagee began foreclosure in the U.S. District Court for the Territory of Alaska, naming Einstoss and the Territory as parties.
- Einstoss, then in Seattle, appeared to address the mortgage claim based on an express representation that recovery would be limited to the mortgaged property; he admitted liability on the mortgage note.
- The Territory filed a cross-complaint seeking judgment for unpaid franchise taxes and foreclosure of its lien.
- The Territory obtained an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 authorizing service outside the Territory; the cross-complaint was personally served on Einstoss in Seattle.
- Einstoss died in New York on May 14, 1954, one day before his answer to the cross-complaint was due.
- Without any suggestion of death or substitution of a personal representative, the Alaska court entered default and, in 1957, rendered judgment against Einstoss on the tax claim.
- Alaska sold the Alaska property and applied the proceeds to the judgment, then demanded payment of the remaining deficiency from the New York estate administrator in 1965.
- The New York Surrogate’s Court disallowed Alaska’s claim; the Appellate Division affirmed; Alaska appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether New York had to recognize and enforce the Alaska territorial-court judgment against the estate under full faith and credit.
2. Whether the Alaska court acquired in personam jurisdiction over Einstoss on the tax cross-claim during his lifetime.
3. Whether the Alaska judgment could bind the estate when it was entered after Einstoss’s death without substituting an administrator or other representative.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the disallowance of Alaska’s claim against the New York estate.
- The Alaska judgment was not entitled to recognition because the estate administrator was never made a party and the Alaska court did not obtain in personam jurisdiction for the tax claim during Einstoss’s lifetime.
- Service and proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 were treated as limited to enforcing interests in property within the district and could not support a personal deficiency judgment beyond the value of the property proceeded against.
- A judgment entered against a person after death, without substitution of a representative, could not impose personal liability on the estate.

## Legal Principles

- Full faith and credit does not require enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered without a jurisdictional foundation.
- A limited appearance or participation in litigation on one claim does not necessarily confer general personal jurisdiction for additional claims, especially where the plaintiff invokes procedures premised on the defendant’s absence from the forum.
- Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 are directed at property within the district and do not authorize an in personam judgment imposing liability beyond the property involved.
- A personal judgment entered after a defendant’s death, without substitution of a personal representative, is not binding on the decedent’s estate.

## Conclusion

New York refused to enforce Alaska’s post-death tax judgment as a personal claim against the estate because the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over the decedent for the tax cross-claim and never obtained jurisdiction over the estate through substitution, limiting any valid relief to the Alaska property itself.


Matter of Einstoss, 26 N.Y.2d 181, 309 N.Y.S.2d 184, 257 N.E.2d 637 (1970)