Source: https://openjurist.org/276/us/13
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:28:24+00:00

Document:
Mr. James D. Carpenter, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Jacob R. Mantell, of Summit, N. J., for defendant in error.
Pizzutti was driving a team of horses attached to a wagon on a public highway in New Jersey. Wuchter was a resident of Pennsylvania, who was following the wagon with his automobile. Wuchter drove his car so as to crash into the rear of the wagon, damaging it, and injuring Pizzutti and his horses. Pizzutti instituted a suit against Wuchter in the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Wuchter was served with process under the provisions of the act known as chapter 232 of the Laws of 1924 (P. L. 1924, p. 517), by leaving process with the secretary of the state. Wuchter interposed no defense. A judgment interlocutory was taken against him and a writ of inquiry of damages was issued. Although the statute did not require it, notice of its proposed execution was actually served personally on Wuchter in Pennsylvania. Wuchter did not appear. A final judgment was entered. Wuchter then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the act under which the process was served upon him was unconstitutional, because it deprived him of his property without due process of law, in contravention of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
By the general state motor law, as amended by chapter 211, Laws of 1924, provision is made for the registration and license of automobiles owned by nonresidents who use the highways of the state (P. L. 1924, § 9, par. 4, p. 451). They are required to agree that original process against the owner made by leaving it in the office of the secretary of state shall have the same effect as if served on the owner within the state, and the statute provides that the commissioner of motor vehicles shall notify the owner of such motor car by letter directed to him at the post office address stated in his application for registration and license already filed with the commissioner.
It is settled by our decisions that a state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by nonresidents as well as by residents. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 622, 35 S. Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 385. We have further held that, in advance of the operation of a motor vehicle on its highways by a nonresident, a state may require him to take out a license and to appoint one of its officials as his agent, on whom process may be served in suits growing out of accidents in such operation. This was under the license act or New Jersey, last above referred to, and not No. 232. Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 167, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222. We have also recognized it to be a valid exercise of power by a state, because of its right to regulate the use of its highways by nonresidents, to declare, without exacting a license, that the use of the highway by the nonresident may be statute be treated as the equivalent of the appointment by him of a state official as agent on whom process in such a case may be served. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 71 L. Ed. 1091.
The question made in the present case is whether a statute, making the secretary of state the person to receive the process, must, in order to be valid, contain a provision making it reasonably probable that notice of the service on the secretary will be communicated to the nonresident defendant who is sued. Chapter 232 of the Laws of 1924 makes no such requirement and we have not been shown any provision in any applicable law of the state of New Jersey requiring such communication. We think that a law with the effect of this one should make a reasonable provision for such probable communication. We quite agree, and, indeed, have so held in the Pawloski Case, that the act of a nonresident in using the highways of another state may be properly declared to be an agreement to accept service of summons in a suit growing out of the use of the highway by the owner of the automobile, but the enforced acceptance of the service of process on a state officer by the defendant would not be fair or due process unless such officer or the plaintiff is required to mail the notice to the defendant, or to advise him, by some written communication, so as to make it reasonably probable that he will receive actual notice. Otherwise, where the service of summons is limited to a service of the secretary of state or some officer of the state, without more, it will be entirely possible for a person injured to sue any nonresident he chooses, and through service upon the state official obtain a default judgment against a nonresident who has never been in the state, who had nothing to do with the accident, or whose automobile having been in the state has never injured anybody. A provision of law for service that leaves open such a clear opportunity for the commission of fraud (Heinemann v. Pier, 110 Wis. 185, 85 N. W. 646) or injustice is not a reasonable provision, and in the case supposed would certainly be depriving a defendant of his property without due process of law. The Massachusetts statute, considered in Hess v. Pawloski, really made necessary actual personal service to be evidenced by the written admission of the defendant. In Kane v. New Jersey, the service provided for by statute was by mail to the necessarily known registered address of the licensed defendant.
In determining the reasonableness of provision for service we should consider the situation of both parties. The person injured must find out to whom the offending automobile belongs. This may be a difficult task. It is easy when the operator of the automobile is present after the accident. That is provided for in the second section of this act by apprehending him or his operator. But the vehicle may be operated by some one who having committed the injury successfully escapes capture or identification. In such a case, the person injured must be left without a remedy by suit at law, as every one must be who does not know or cannot discover the person who injured him. The burden is necessarily on him to investigate and learn. In finding out who it was, and whether the person is of such financial responsibility as to warrant a suit, he almost necessarily will secure knowledge of his post office address or his place of residence, and thereby be enabled to point out how notice may be communicated to him. With this information at hand the state may properly authorize service to be made on one of its own officials, if it also requires that notice of that service shall be communicated to the person sued. Every statute of this kind, therefore, should require the plaintiff bringing the suit to show in the summons to be served the post office address or residence of the defendant being sued, and should impose either on the plaintiff himself or upon the official receiving service or some other, the duty of communication by mail or otherwise with the defendant.
The question is mooted in Simon v. Southern R. Co., 236 U. S. 115, 129, 35 S. Ct. 255, 59 L. Ed. 492, and the above language is quoted, but it was not found necessary to decide the point.
It is instructive in this matter to refer to state authorities to observe their view of what is valid in statutory provision for service upon proposed defendants, corporate or otherwise, where personal service cannot be had. In Nelson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 225 Ill. 197, 80 N. E. 109, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1186, 116 Am. St. Rep. 133, the action was for personal injuries. The statute provided that service could be had upon the president of a company at the place of business in the county, but that if there was no officer in the county, then the company might be notified by publication and mail in like manner and like effect as is provided in the rules of chancery. Those rules required an affidavit showing the publication of a notice in a newspaper, and the mailing of the notice published. It was held that the service under the statute was valid as a reasonable one, for it was probable that the defendant would receive actual notice of the action before judgment was rendered against it.
See, also, Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398, 20 S. Ct. 410, 44 L. Ed. 520.
But it is said that the defendant here had actual notice by service out of New Jersey in Pennsylvania. He did not, however, appear in the cause and such notice was not required by the statute. Not having been directed by the statute it cannot, therefore, supply constitutional validity to the statute or to service under it. Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 424, 425, 35 S. Ct. 625, 59 L. Ed. 1027; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 144, 29 S. Ct. 246, 53 L. Ed. 441; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Wright, 207 U. S. 127, 138, 28 S. Ct. 47, 52 L. Ed. 134, 12 Ann. Cas. 463; Security Trust Co. v. Lexington, 203 U. S. 323, 333, 27 S. Ct. 87, 51 L. Ed. 204; Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398, 409, 20 S. Ct. 410, 44 L. Ed. 520; Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, 188, 30 Am. Rep. 289; Berryhill v. Sepp. 106 Minn. 458, 119 N. W. 404, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344. For these reasons, we think that the statute of New Jersey under consideration does not make provision for communication to be proposed defendant, such as to create reasonable probability that he would be made aware of the bringing of the suit.
The rule of general law stated by the court seems to me sound. But I think the judgment should be affirmed. The objection sustained by the court-that the statute is void because it fails to provide that the secretary of state shall notify the nonresident defendant-is an objection taken for the first time in this court. It was not made or considered below, and it is not to be found in the assignments of error filed in this court. The only objection made or considered below was that the state court lacked jurisdiction, because the defendant had not been personally served within the state; in other words, that while the state might require the defendant to appoint the secretary of state as his agent to receive service, as held in Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222, service without such appointment is bad. When the case at bar was decided below, the validity of that objection was an open question. Before the case was reached for argument in this court, Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 71 L. Ed. 1091, settled that process other than personal service within the state may suffice to give jurisdiction over nonresident motorists. The objection now urged-that failure to prescribe that the secretary shall notify the nonresident denies due process-is an afterthought provoked by our decision in Hess v. Pawloski.
The nature of our jurisdiction under section 237 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 344) demands a rigorous adherence to the long-estab lished practice that objections not raised or considered below cannot be relied on here. First National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353, 363, 19 L. Ed. 701; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557, 22 L. Ed. 487; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U. S. 83, 89, 20 S. Ct. 287, 44 L. Ed. 382; Detroit, Ft. Wayne & Belle Isle R. Co. v. Osborn, 189 U. S. 383, 390, 391, 23 S. Ct. 540, 47 L. Ed. 860; Cox v. Texas, 202 U. S. 446, 451, 26 S. Ct. 671, 50 L. Ed. 1099; Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291, 301, 27 S. Ct. 281, 51 L. Ed. 490. It is immaterial that Wuchter made a general objection that the statute violated the due process clause. Compare Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. Ed. 234; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 197-201, 19 S. Ct. 379, 43 L. Ed. 665; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U. S. 625, 632, 36 S. Ct. 473, 60 L. Ed. 830. The wisdom of that rule of practice is illustrated by what has happened in the case at bar. The reversal rests wholly upon a construction given to the New Jersey statute by this court. It construes the statute as not requiring the secretary of state to give notice to the defendant. Whether the Court of Errors and Appeals would have so construed the statute is at least doubtful. Had the objection been made there, it is possible-and indeed probable-that the highest court of New Jersey would have construed the statute as requiring the notice. Its able opinion shows that it appreciates fully the requirements of the due process clause. See, also, Redzina v. Provident Institution for Savings, 96 N. J. Eq. 346, 125 A. 133.
See, also, Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern R. Co. v. Anderson, 242 U. S. 283, 287, 37 S. Ct. 124, 61 L. Ed. 302.
While this court has power to construe the statute, it is not obliged to do so. We have often recognized the propriety of remanding a case to a state court for the determination of a delicate question of state law. Gulf, Colorado & Santa F e Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, 506, 32 S. Ct. 542, 56 L. Ed. 860; Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 291, 44 S. Ct. 323, 68 L. Ed. 686; Missouri ex rel. Wabash R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 273 U. S. 126, 131, 47 S. Ct. 311, 71 L. Ed. 575; Cobb Brick Co. v. Lindsay, 275 U. S. 491, 48 S. Ct. 34, 72 L. Ed. —. If the judgment is to be reversed, it should be specifically for the purpose of enabling the Court of Errors and Appeals to pass upon the objection first raised by the defendant in this court.
In the case at bar, the objection is not lack of jurisdiction, but denial of due process because the statute did not require the secretary to notify the nonresident defendant. Notice was in fact given. And it was admitted at the bar that the defendant had, at all times, actual knowledge and the opportunity to defend. The cases cited by the court as holding that he could deliberately disregard that notice and opportunity and yet insist upon a defect in the statute as drawn, although he was in no way prejudiced thereby, seem hardly reconcilable with a long line of authorities. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S. 230, 238, 239, 20 S. Ct. 620, 44 L. Ed. 747; Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427, 436, 437, 21 S. Ct. 836, 45 L. Ed. 1165; Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 227, 228, 25 S. Ct. 625, 49 L. Ed. 1023, 3 Ann. Cas. 1084; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hostetter, 240 U. S. 620, 36 S. Ct. 475, 60 L. Ed. 829; Aikins v. Kingsbury, 247 U. S. 484, 489, 38 S. Ct. 558, 62 L. Ed. 1226. For the reasons stated, I do not need to attempt to reconcile them.

References: § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 344
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.