Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-04-01
COURT. c. ]. DECISIONS.
.DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRcaNIAN pilot.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.

HINTON v. PENN NJ. L. ms. CO.
Supreme Court Of North Carolina,
February 20. 1900.
"A COURT OF VIRGINIA CANNOT
RENDER A JUDGMENT WHICH
WILL BIND A RESIDENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA. UNDER A
STATUTE OF VIRGINIA WHICH
ALLOWS SERVICE OF SUMMONS
WITHOUT THAT STATE, AL
THOUGH SUCH SERVICE WAS
= HAD. SAID RESIDENT OF NORTH
CAROLINA NOT APPEARING In
RESPONSE TO SUCH SUMMONS.
This action was brought by the plain-
elf to recover of the defendant COM
pany the amount mentioned In u policy
of insurance issued by the company up
on the life of w. NJ. Mitchell, and pay
able to his executors, administrators,
and assigns, and which policy had been
assigned by Mitchell to the plaintiff.
The defendant, in its answer, pleaded
an estopped Of record In the nature of
Judgment which was rendered In the
Court of Law and Chancery of Norfolk,
State OF Virginia. In this suit the ad-
minstrator of Mitchell brought an &C
ton against defendant company for the
recovery of the amount mentioned in
the policy, and an affidavit was filed
therein by one OF the officers of the
company, in which 1t was stated that
the defendant claimed no interest in
the subject matter OF the said suit, but
that Il third party JOhn1L. Hinton (the
plaintiff In the present action). q citizen
and resident of North Carolina, had a
claim to the amount mentioned In the
policy, his claim thereto being that he
holds an assignment for value of said
do 20 l,it Nv t11n coil l.
liam NJ. Mitchell in his lifetime, which
alleged assignment has come to the no
tice of the defendant company"
Under the provisions of the Code of
Virginia. notice was served upon Hin
ton in North Carolina, requesting him
to appear and set up any claim he
had to said policy, and he falling to
appear, the Virginia court gave judg-
ment as the Code required that said
Hinton should "be forever barred OF
any claims in respect to the subject
matter of this suit against the defend
ant company"
The lower court instructed the jury
that Hinton was bound by this order
of the Virginia court, and gave judg-
mcnt against him, and he appealed.
The court says:
we are of opinion that the instruc-
ton of his honor was erroneous. All
of the evidence showed that Hinton did
not appear in the action in the court
in Norfolk.
The court in Virginia, in making the
order for the service of the notice upon
the defendant. Hinton, claimed the au-
fhority to make personal service upon
the defendant in North Carolina, under
section 2998 Of the Code of Virginia.
Such an order was invalid and void,
and the service made under 1t was
therefore void. Each State in the
Union is q co-equal with the others in
point of authority and power, and 1t
Is elementary learning that one State,
through Its courts, cannot extend Its
coercive power. nor provide Tor per-
sonal service OF process, nor affect by
judicial determination property outside
of its own territory. Any attempt by
one State to give to it's courts jurisdic-
ton beyond its own limits, over per-
sons domfciled. or property situated, in
another State, is a uSurpation OF au-
thority, and is void. This law would
not apply, of course. in cases where
the courts of one State had made per-
eonnl service of process upon persons
who lived in another State, but who
had put themselves within the jurisdic-
tion of that other State. And other
methods of giving notice OF court pro-
ceedings to non-residentS are permit
ted, as service by publication, where
the property of the nonresident Is
brought under the control Of the court
by attachment or other equivalent act;
the theory of the law being that the
owner is always In possession or his
property and that its seizure Will in
form him of the seizure, and that he
will look out for his interest. And also
other methods OF service OF process Will
be allowed in cases where property Is
sought to be partitioned between resi-
dents and non residents; In cases 10
enforce a contract between such per- |
n nrnnprtV within the |
jurisdiction: in cases OF condemnation
of a non-resident's property for public |
purposes; and also to fix the status or
a nonresident as to his relations with
a resident within the jurisdiction, as
in divorce proceedings But as was
said In Pennoyer v. Neff where the
entire object of the action is to de-
ternine the personal rights and obli-
cations of the defendantS.-that Is, |
where the suit is merely in personam.-l
constructive service in this form upon
q nonresident is Intellectual for any
purpose. Process from the tribunals of
one State cannot run into another
State. and summon parties there domi- !
ciled to leave It's territory, and respond |
to proceedings against them. Publ |
cation of process or notice within the |
State where the tribunal sits cannot
create any greater obligation upon the
nonresident to appear. Process sent
to him out of the State and process
published within it are equally I'M
availing in proceedings to establish his !
personal liability" The attempt there |
fore, which was made to make the SER
vice upon the defendant, Hinton,
through the process from the Court of |
Law and Chancery in Norfolk, being
void. 1t follows that the Judgment
based upon that attempted service is |
also void. Reversed.