## Facts

- An Oregon lawyer, John H. Mitchell, sued Marcus Neff (a nonresident) in Oregon state court for unpaid legal fees.
- Neff was not personally served in Oregon and did not appear; the state court proceeded based on service by publication under an Oregon statute.
- The Oregon court entered a default money judgment against Neff.
- After the judgment, Neff’s Oregon land was sold on execution to satisfy the judgment; Sylvester Pennoyer purchased the land at the sheriff’s sale and received a sheriff’s deed.
- Neff later brought a federal ejectment action in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon to recover the land, arguing the Oregon judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.
- The federal court entered judgment for Neff; Pennoyer sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether a state court may enter a valid in personam money judgment against a nonresident who was not personally served within the state, did not appear, and received only notice by publication.
2. Whether an execution sale of a nonresident’s in-state land is valid when the land was not attached or otherwise brought under the court’s control at the commencement of the action.
3. Whether the jurisdictional defect rendering the judgment void may be raised collaterally in a later action affecting title to the property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the federal judgment for Neff.
- A state court lacks authority to bind a nonresident personally where the defendant was served only by publication, was not served within the state, and did not appear; such a personal judgment is void.
- Because the underlying Oregon judgment was void, the sheriff’s sale conveyed no title to Pennoyer.
- A state may adjudicate claims against a nonresident through proceedings directed at in-state property only when the property is brought under the court’s control at the outset (e.g., attachment); constructive service may suffice only in that setting.
- The lack of jurisdiction was a fundamental defect that could be asserted collaterally; by contrast, nonjurisdictional irregularities in publication procedures were not open to collateral attack.

## Legal Principles

- Due process prohibits entry of an in personam judgment against a nonresident absent personal service within the forum, voluntary appearance, or other valid basis for personal jurisdiction.
- State judicial authority is territorially limited: a state generally cannot exercise direct jurisdiction over persons outside its borders through its process alone.
- In rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over a nonresident depends on the court’s control over the defendant’s in-state property established at the commencement of the action (typically by attachment or equivalent seizure).
- Constructive or substituted service (including publication) is ineffective to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident for a purely personal money claim.
- A void judgment may be collaterally attacked, and actions taken under it (including execution sales) do not transfer valid title.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Oregon’s default money judgment against a nonresident served only by publication, without appearance and without prior attachment of property, violated due process and was void; the resulting execution sale transferred no title, and the jurisdictional defect could be raised collaterally in a later title dispute.


Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)