Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1 | Page
sale, Defendant discovered what had happened to his land and brought suit
against Plaintiff to recover the land. This appeal followed after Defendant
lost his suit against Plaintiff.
PENNOYER v NERFF
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Neff was being sued by Mitchell in
Oregon for unpaid legal fees. A default judgment was entered against
Defendant for his failure to come to court or otherwise resist the lawsuit,
despite the fact that he was not personally served with process, nor was a
resident of Oregon. Later, in an attempt to collect upon his judgment,
Mitchell attached land located in Oregon belonging to Defendant, and had
it sold to Plaintiff Pennoyer through a Sheriffs sale.
Facts. Mitchell, a lawyer, sued Defendant, his client, in Oregon state court
for unpaid legal fees. At the time Defendant was a non-resident of the state
who was not personally served with process. Constructive service was
issued upon Defendant by publication. Defendant did not come to court or
otherwise resist the lawsuit, and default judgment was entered against him.
After the default judgment, Defendant acquired 300 acres of land in
Oregon. To satisfy his judgment against Defendant, Mitchell had the
sheriff seize and sell Defendants land. The land was purchased by
Plaintiff, who received a sheriffs deed as evidence of title. The sheriff
then turned the sale proceeds over to Mitchell. Shortly after the sheriffs
2 | Page
ISC v Washington
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was an out of state company that
employed salesmen within the state of Washington. Washington sued
Defendant to recover unpaid unemployment taxes and served Defendant in
two ways: (1) by mail and (2) by serving one of its salesmen within the
state. Defendant appealed from a verdict for Washington, claiming that
Washington had no personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order for a state to exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have such minimum
contacts with the state so that exercising jurisdiction over the defendant
would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Facts. International Shoe Co., Defendant, was a company based in
Delaware with an office in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant employed
salesmen that resided in Washington to sell their product in the state of
Washington. Defendant regularly shipped orders to the salesmen who
accepted them, the salesmen would display the products at places in
Washington, and the salesmen were compensated by commission for sale
of the products. The salesmen were also reimbursed for the cost of renting
the places of business in Washington. Washington sued Defendant after
Defendant failed to make contributions to an unemployment compensation
fund exacted by state statutes. The Washington statute said that the
commissioner could issue personal service if Defendant was found within
the state, or by mailing it to Defendant if Defendant was not in the state.
The notice of assessment was served upon Defendants salesperson and a
copy of the notice was mailed to Defendant. Defendant appeared specially,
moving to set aside the order that service upon the salesperson was proper
service. Defendant also argued that it did not do business in the state,
that there was no agent upon which service could be made, and that
Defendant did not furnish employment within the meaning of the statute.
Defendant also argued that the statute violated the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and imposed a prohibitive burden of interstate
commerce. The trial court found for Washington and the Supreme Court of
Washington affirmed, reasoning that the continuous flow of Defendants
product into Washington was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Defendant
appealed.
Issue. Is service of process upon Defendants agent sufficient notice when
the corporations activities result in a large volume of interstate business so
that the corporation receives the protection of the laws of the state and the
suit is related to the activities which make the corporation present?
Held. Yes. Affirmed. The general rule is that in order to have jurisdiction
with someone outside the state, the person must have certain minimum
contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For a corporation,
the minimum contacts required are not just continuous and systematic
activities but also those that give rise to the liabilities sued on. Defendant
could have sued someone in Washington. It was afforded the protection of
the laws of that state, and therefore it should be subject to suit.
Dissent. The states power to tax should not be qualified by an ambiguous
statement
regarding
fair
play
and
substantial
justice.
Discussion. This decision articulates the rule for determining whether a
state has personal jurisdiction over an absent defendant via the minimum
contacts test. In general, International Shoe demonstrates that contacts
with a state should be evaluated in terms of how fair it would be to
exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant.
3 | Page
attorney for all persons known or unknown not otherwise appearing who
had or might thereafter have any interest in the income of the common
trust fund. Appellee was appointed to represent those interested in the
principal. Appellant appeared specially, objecting that notice by
publication, permitted under the applicable statute was inadequate to
afford t
he beneficiaries due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and that
therefore jurisdiction was lacking.
Mullane v CHB
Brief Fact Summary. Appellee, a bank located in New York, set up a trust
covering 113 participants and sent notice by publication to all known and
unknown beneficiaries regarding Appellees application for judicial
settlement of the trust, as required under a New York statute. Upon first
distribution of the trust, Appellee would mail notice to known beneficiaries
that could benefit from the interest or principal. Appellant, guardian of the
beneficiaries, appealed, arguing that notice by publication alone violated
the beneficiaries due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts. Appellee, Central Hanover Bank & Trust, set up common fund
pursuant to a New York statute allowing the creation of common funds for
distribution of judicial settlement trusts. There were 113 participating
trusts. Appellee petitioned for settlement of its first account as common
trustee. Some of the beneficiaries were not residents of New York.
Notice was by publication for four weeks in a local newspaper. Appellee
had notified those people by mail that were of full age and sound mind
who would be entitled to share in the principal if the interest they held
became distributable. Appellant was appointed as special guardian and
4 | Page
5 | Page
6 | Page
made with respect to said shares by the petitioner Idonah Perkins, and by
one Engelhard.
Eugene Perkins included in his modified complaint as parties defendants
petitioner, Idonah Perkins, and Engelhard. Eugene Perkins prayed that
petitioner Idonah Perkins and H. Engelhard be adjudged without interest in
the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert
thereon. Summons by publication were served upon the nonresident
defendants Idonah Perkins and Engelhard. Engelhard filed his answer.
Petitioner filed her answer with a crosscomplaint in which she sets up a
judgment allegedly obtained by her against respondent Eugene Perkins,
from the SC of the State of New York, wherein it is declared that she is the
sole legal owner and entitled to the possession and control of the shares of
stock in question with all the cash dividends declared thereon by the
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company.
Idonah Perkins filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that the court has
no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, because the alleged judgment
of the SC of the State of New York is res judicata. Petitioners demurrer
was overruled, thus this petition.
ISSUE:
WON in view of the alleged judgment entered in favor of the petitioner by
the SC of New York and which is claimed by her to be res judicata on all
questions raised by the respondent, Eugene Perkins, the local court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
RULING:
By jurisdiction over the subject matter is meant the nature of the cause of
action and of the relief sought, and this is conferred by the sovereign
authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in general
nature of its powers, or in authority specially conferred. In the present
case, the amended complaint filed by the respondent, Eugene Perkins
alleged calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company and the granting of affirmative
reliefs, which fall within the general jurisdiction of the CFI- Manila.
Similarly CFI- Manila is empowered to adjudicate the several demands
contained in petitioners crosscomplaint.
Idonah Perkins in her crosscomplaint brought suit against Eugene Perkins
and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company upon the alleged
judgment of the SC of the State of New York and asked the court below to
render judgment enforcing that New York judgment, and to issue
execution thereon. This is a form of action recognized by section 309 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and
which falls within the general jurisdiction of the CFI- Manila, to
adjudicate, settle and determine.
The petitioner expresses the fear that the respondent judge may render
judgment annulling the final, subsisting, valid judgment rendered and
entered in this petitioners favor by the courts of the State of New York,
which decision is res judicata on all the questions constituting the subject
matter of civil case and argues on the assumption that the respondent
judge is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause. Whether or
not the respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will give validity
and efficacy to the New York judgment set up by the petitioner in her
cross-complaint is a question that goes to the merits of the controversy and
relates to the rights of the parties as between each other, and not to the
jurisdiction or power of the court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not
the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusion
7 | Page
8 | Page
dictates that both parties must be given equal access to evidence in each
other's possession. Hence, both parties maybe subjected to the modes of
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on equal terms
subject to approval by Indian courts.
Issue
Whether or not the dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is
proper.
Held
Yes. The Indian courts are adequate alternative fora.
Ratio Decidendi
Almost all of the estimated 200,000 plaintiffs are citizens and residents of
India who have revoked their representation by an American counsel in
favor of the Indian government, which now prefers Indian courts. Further,
the UCC has already consented to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
Indian courts. All the witnesses and evidence are likewise in India.
As to the conditions, the first is valid in order to secure the viability of the
Indian courts as alternate fora. The second is problematic as it gives the
impression that foreign judgments the UCC's consent is necessary in order
for the judgement of the Indian courts to be enforceable in New York. The
laws of New York, in fact, recognizes that a judgment rendered by a
foreign court may be enforced in that State except if such judgment was
rendered in violation of due process or without jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant. The request of UCC of supervision by US courts of
Indian courts is untenable. The power of US courts cannot extend beyond
their territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, once US courts dismiss a case on
the ground of forum non conveniens, they lose any further jurisdiction over
the case, except in case of an action for enforcement later on. Denial of
due process may, however, constitute a defense against the enforcement of
the Indian judgment. The third condition is likewise invalid. Basic justice
Public Interest
*administrative difficulties encountered when courts are congested
*jury duty: burden on community
*appropriateness of having the trial in a court that is familiar with the
applicable state law rather than getting another forum enmeshed in a
complicated conflict-of-laws problem
WHEN CAN'T REFUSE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
*when the forum is the only state where jurisdiction over defendant can be
obtained
*when the forum provides procedural remedies not available in another
state.
March 17, 1930
G.R. No. 32636
In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased.
A.W. FLUEMER, vs.
ANNIE COUSHING HIX
FACTS:
The petitioner is a special administrator of the estate of Edward
Hix. He alleged that the latters will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia
on November 3, 1925 by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction,
and that the laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner submitted
a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as found in West Virginia Code,
annotated by Hogg, Charles E., vol.2 1914, p. 1690 and as certified to by
the Director of National Library. The Judge of the First Instance however
denied the probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and301 of the
Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether it is necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of
such law in West Virginia as a prerequisite to the allowance and recording
of said will.
10 | P a g e
RULING:
Yes. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves
in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to
take judicial notice of the laws of the various states of the American
Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements of the
law were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an
extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state
of West Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer
having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia
as provided in Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing that the
extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time alleged will
was executed. The court therefore did not err in denying the probate of the
will. The existence of such law in West Virginia must be proved.
11 | P a g e
b)
c)
d)
e)
12 | P a g e