other door of the defendant's residence and giving him notice by mail. In King v. Davis (14) substituted service was attempted by posting a copy of the summons on the door of the defendant's residence. The return of the summons showed that the copy had been posted on the door of the defendant's residence, but did not state that it was the front door, as required by statute authorizing this form of substituted service. The court held the service insufficient. The case is valuable to show the practice in some of the states of permitting this form of service under certain circumstances, and also how strictly the statute must be followed.

SECTION 3. SERVICE UPON NON-RESIDENTS: ESSENTIALS OF

JURISDICTION.

§ 34. In general. The problems presented for consideration in this section are entirely distinct from those already considered. The power of the courts of one state over a person in a foreign state is subject to limitations recognized both under the Constitution of the United States and under the rules of Conflict of Laws. We are here concerned with the power of a court to give an effective judgment against one over whom it has no personal control, and who owes no personal allegiance to the state. We shall consider the limits of judicial power to affect non-residents, the circumstances under which and how far it may do so; and shall group, so far as may be, the classes of proceedings in which it is possible for the courts of one state effectually to bind non-residents by their judgments.

(14) 137 Federal, 198, 208.

§ 35. Essentials of jurisdiction to affect rights of nonresident not served with process in the state. A court secures no jurisdiction of a non-resident served with process by an officer who passed beyond the state line. If, however, the non-resident has property within the state, and the aim of the plaintiff's proceeding is to affect his interest in that property, or to apply the particular property to the payment of a personal judgment which may be procured in the proceeding in which the property has been seized, a different situation arises. The non-resident in such a case has an indirect relation to the state; his property is subject to its control even though he is personally in another state. It is within the power of the state to affect him indirectly by proceeding against the property he has within its borders.

The fact that a non-resident has property in the state is one requisite for a binding judgment against him. It lies at the foundation of two of the classes of proceedings that can be taken against non-residents, namely, proceedings strictly in rem and proceedings quasi in rem. In a third class of proceedings, divorce proceedings, a "res" (thing, object) in the jurisdiction is also requisite, but it does not consist of property, as it does in the first two classes mentioned, but of a status or relation between two persons. Courts have considered this relation a sufficient res to permit them to affect the interests of a non-resident in that relation, at the suit of one domiciled within their jurisdiction.

§ 36. Proceedings in rem. Proceedings in which the moving party seeks, not a personal judgment against the

non-resident, but a judgment depriving him of or defining his interest in property within the court's jurisdiction, are proceedings in rem. The nature and theory of such proceedings will be found set forth in the article on Conflict of Laws, §§ 109-15, in Volume X of this work. A few of the commoner proceedings of this character may be mentioned here.

Actions brought for the purpose of making a ship liable for an injury or a debt and then selling her to satisfy the claim are brought without making the owners parties, the theory of the procedure being to take the vessel after a liability has been established, not against the owners, but against it. This was perhaps the earliest well-recognized procedure by which the interest of an absent non-resident could be affected, and the curious form of the action, against the ship itself, was due to an historical fiction to avoid the difficulty of the owner's non-residence (15).

Actions to have land registered under the Torrens land registration system are instituted against adverse claimants for the purpose of having the interest of such claimants determined. See Title to Real Estate, §§ 124-28, in Volume VI. There is no attempt to get a judgment for a money demand against them, but merely to have their interests fixed and placed on record, or to have a determination by the court that the interest is invalid and that it should be deemed non-existent (16). Of a very similar character is the proceeding brought to remove a cloud on

(15) Tyler v. Judges, 175 Mass. 71, 76-77. See Conflict of Laws, § 110, Vol. X.

(16) Tyler v. Judges, 175 Mass. 71.

title against land in the court's jurisdiction. A non-resident may have a claim shown on the land records which should not be there. This proceeding again is based on the theory that the moving party is entitled to a decree determining and ending the non-resident's apparent interest, and not upon the fact that he owes the moving party any debt for which he should have a judgment entered against him (17). Another instance is the condemnation by a railroad of land owned by non-residents. Here, again, the railroad has no personal claim upon which it sues; its sole object is to procure a judgment of the court that, upon its complying with certain conditions, such as payment of the amount fixed by appraisers who value the land sought to be taken, the title shall be transferred from the non-resident to the railroad (18).

§ 37. Proceedings quasi in rem. A proceeding quasi in rem has for its ultimate object the application of a nonresident's property to the satisfaction of some money judgment entered by the court in the course of the proceeding. It is in this that it has its distinguishing feature. The exact character of proceedings quasi in rem is stated thus by the United States Supreme Court in Freeman v. Alderson (19): "There is, however, a large class of cases which are not strictly actions in rem but are frequently spoken of as actions quasi in rem, because, though brought against persons, they only seek to subject certain property of those persons to the discharge of the claims asserted.

(17) Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316. See Conflict of Laws, §§ 111-12, Vol. X.

(18) Huling v. Kaw Valley Ry., 130 U. S. 559. (19) 119 United States, 185, 187.

Such are actions in which property of non-residents is attached and held for the discharge of debts due by them to citizens of the state, and actions for the enforcement of mortgages and other liens. Indeed, all proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant to satisfy the demands of the plaintiff, are in a general way thus designated. But they differ, among other things, from actions which are strictly in rem, in that the interest of the defendant is alone sought to be affected, that citation to him is required, and that judgment therein is only conclusive between the parties."

§ 38. Same: Seizure of property before judgment necessary. A seizure of the property before the entry of the judgment is an essential prerequisite to its validity for the purpose of applying the property to its satisfaction. This was decided in the leading case of Pennoyer v. Neff (20). Neff, a non-resident of Oregon, owned land in that state. A suit was brought against him upon a demand for services as an attorney. Process was served upon Neff by publication, but the land was not seized before judgment. Neff did not appear. Judgment by default was rendered against him and his land sold to Pennoyer at an execution sale to satisfy the judgment. Neff then brought an action of ejectment against Pennoyer to get back his land, on the theory that the proceedings of the court that had sold it, upon a judgment rendered against him before the land was seized, were void and ineffectual to take his title from him. The case was taken to the United States Supreme Court, which held that his contention was cor

(20) 95 United States, 714.