PENNOYER

• Mitchell was hired by Neff to help him obtain a land grant under the Donation Law of Oregon =
successful
• Mitchell, atty. trying to collect legal fees from Neff.
• filed case in Oregon Court, summons by publication against Neff who was a non-resident
• Default judgment IFO Mitchell who sold the property at auction to Pennoyer
◦ NOTE: Neff didn't have title over the land yet at the time. took 5 months after judgment
before property was levied
• Neff sued Pennoyer for the property in Federal Dist. Court of Oregon saying it was not a valid
judgment against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him and the land
• Both LC and CA ruled for Neff.
H:
• JD acquired by: 1) personal service of summons 2) attaching property BEFORE litigation starts,
and such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court
• to pass valid judgment: needs to be tribunal with authority to pass judgments
• CAB: Mitchel could not attach the property BEFORE the suit here because Neff didn't have
title to the property yet

MULLANE
• Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co. established common trust fund in accord w/ NY Banking
Law
• petition for judicial settlement of accounts under the common trust fund; to be binding on all
interested parties
◦ about $3M, total of 113 trusts; some beneficiaries not NY Residents
• Notice by publication in the Newspaper was the only notice served. (in accordance with the
requirements of NY Banking Law.
◦ name/add of trust company, name and date of est. of the common trust fund, list of all
participating estates,trusts or funds.
• 1ST INVESTMENT: TRUST CO. NOTIFIED BENEFICIARIES W/ KNOWN
ADDRESSES/NAMES BY MAIL + attached a copy of provisions of the Law relating to
sending notice/judicial settlement
• Beneficiaries now saying insufficient notice given
• LC: NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT
H:
• BENEFICIARIES ARG: in personam = needs personal service
• Distinction between in rem and in personam
◦ COURT: not relevant in this case, requirements of DP do not depend on classification of the
action (wow talaga?)
• Fundamental requirement of person to be apprised of the pendency of action
• Validity of the chosen method may be defended on ground that it is reasonably certain to inform
those affected or "the form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than
other of the feasible and customary substitutes"
◦ COURT: has allowed publication/substituted service where it is not reasonably
possible/practicable to give a more direct notice.
▪ ex. missing or unknown
• CAB: beneficiaries w/ known names and post office addresses should have been informed by
mail ==> No reason not to at least by ordinary mail
 • NOTICE IN THIS CASE INSUFFICIENT
SHAFFER
• Heitner owned 1 stock in Delaware corp., Greyhound Corp. (Cases filed in Delaware Chancery
Court)
◦ filed derivative suit vs 28 directors/officers: caused corporation to engage in actions that
resulted in corporate liability (private antitrust suit + criminal contempt suit)
• Motion for sequestration of the stocks of the officers, all of whom were nonresidents of
Delaware.
◦ Sequestration order issued; stocks seized + stop transfer orders issued
• Special appearance by officers: Quash the sequestration order
◦ property was not capable of attachment in Delaware
◦ insufficient contacts w/ Delaware to sustain jurisdiction of that Court (Intl. Shoe v
Washington)
▪ to subject defendant to judgment in personam: minimum contacts with such territory of
forum for the suit to not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"
• shift to relationship between defendant, forum, and litigation instead of Exclusive
Sovereignty as seen in Pennoyer v Neff
• HEITNER ARG: position as directors/officers of Delaware Corp. provides sufficient contacts,
ties or relations to Delaware
• DELAWARE COURT: NO. Had jurisdiction
◦ There was a statutory provision that provided that stock of Greyhound was considered as
being in Delaware since that was the place of incorporation
• DELAWARE SC: AFFIRMED

H:
• INTL SHOE:
◦ in rem: presence of property in state = provides contacts with that forum State; source of
controversy between plaintiff and defendant is the property
◦ quasi in rem: presence of property in state is NOT ENOUGH to provide contacts = property
is now unrelated to the plaintiff's cause of action; needs other ties
◦ RATIO: prevent wrongdoer from removing property to a place not subject to jurisdiction
and avoiding payment
• CAB: APPLYING THE RULE OF INTL SHOE; CAN'T ACQUIRE JURISDICTION
◦ quasi in rem in this case
◦ the defendant's holdings in this case are unrelated to the cause of action = NOT ENOUGH
TIES (CONTACTS) w/ Delaware