Hess v. Pawloski
274 U.S. 352
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff in error, a non-resident of Massachusetts, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Worcester County, Massachusetts, which held him liable for injuries caused by plaintiff in error's negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a Massachusetts public highway. Plaintiff in error argued service of process under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 431, § 2 (1923) deprived him of his property without due process of law.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff in error, a non-resident of Massachusetts, sought review of a judgment that held plaintiff in error liable for personal injuries sustained by defendant in error because of plaintiff in error's negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts. Plaintiff in error asserted the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground that the service of process pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 431, § 2 (1923), if sustained, would have deprived him of his property without due process of law in violation of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
HOLDING:The United States Supreme Court held that in order to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, there had to be actual service within the state of notice upon him or upon someone authorized to accept service for him.
ANALYSIS:
The Court further held the state, if making no hostile discrimination against non-residents, was empowered to declare that the use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process could be served. Accordingly, the judgment that denied plaintiff in error's request for dismissal was affirmed.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment that denied plaintiff in error's request for dismissal because Massachusetts had personal jurisdiction over him where the state, if making no hostile discrimination against non-residents, could declare the use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process may be served, such that service was made upon plaintiff in error's authorized agent.
274 U.S. 352
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff in error, a non-resident of Massachusetts, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Worcester County, Massachusetts, which held him liable for injuries caused by plaintiff in error's negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a Massachusetts public highway. Plaintiff in error argued service of process under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 431, § 2 (1923) deprived him of his property without due process of law.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff in error, a non-resident of Massachusetts, sought review of a judgment that held plaintiff in error liable for personal injuries sustained by defendant in error because of plaintiff in error's negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts. Plaintiff in error asserted the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground that the service of process pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 431, § 2 (1923), if sustained, would have deprived him of his property without due process of law in violation of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
HOLDING:The United States Supreme Court held that in order to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, there had to be actual service within the state of notice upon him or upon someone authorized to accept service for him.
ANALYSIS:
The Court further held the state, if making no hostile discrimination against non-residents, was empowered to declare that the use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process could be served. Accordingly, the judgment that denied plaintiff in error's request for dismissal was affirmed.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment that denied plaintiff in error's request for dismissal because Massachusetts had personal jurisdiction over him where the state, if making no hostile discrimination against non-residents, could declare the use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process may be served, such that service was made upon plaintiff in error's authorized agent.
No comments:
Post a Comment