Case Analysis Essay: Pennoyer vs. Neff

Introduction

The case summarizes the legal battle between Pennoyer and Neff who were indirectly involved in a land case issue. In 1886, Mitchel who was the attorney representing Neff who is a foreigner in the Oregon State over land issue sued Neff at a state court for failing to pay him the legal fees for having served him. Unfortunately, the land in which Mitchel sued Neff for not paying the legal fees had not been taken custody by the court. To ensure that he abides by the constitutional provision as provided in the state statute regarding serving notice to those who are non-state defendants, Mitchel went ahead to serve a notice on the newspaper regarding when the action will commence (Jasenovcani, 2015). It is understood that Michel did not personally serve Neff with any communication concerning the notice issued to inform him of the planned court battle between them for failing to honor the agreement to pay Mitchel the legal fees.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Because Neff was not informed of any proceedings, he was unable to appear during the case hearing process, and for this reason, Mitchel was served with a default judgment against him thereby allowing Mitchel some advantage over him in the case issue. In the process, the court decided to auction the land in which Mitchel was representing Neff and sold it to Pennoyer after which the amount received from the auction was used to pay Mitchel his legal fees. In reaction to the court action of auctioning the land to Pennoyer, Neff decided to move to court and sued Pennoyer in an attempt to try to recover his property (Dorsaneo, 2015). The underlying evidence in the case is that the land initially belonged to Neff and there are solid facts that Mitchel had represented him over the land issue.

The major legal issue in the case is to know if the state has the authority to execute using the courts its mandate regarding the effect on the non-resident who was not personally served with a notice regarding the case in question. In any case, therefore, a precise decision should be made so that all parties are satisfied with the decision. This is because it cannot be assumed that Neff was aware of the surrounding case circumstances and ought to have been served with a notice to allow him to prepare for the pending court issue rather than letting the appellant to obtain a default judgment over him in a case he was not made aware of. It is worth mentioning too, that Neff's land had not been attached to any court suit before the mention of the case (Loepp, 2007). This is the main reason as to why Neff ought to have been noticed so that he could adequately prepare his defense for the case.

Regarding the decision of the court, it is true that it was for Neff to take some legal action to recover his land at a federal district court. The state court has given an order to auction the property so that Mitchel could be paid his legal fees without owners participation for lack of notice was a breach of the law of contract because one of the interested parties were absent and the case of the land had not been presented to the court to allow its auctioning. This could be treated as private property (Dorsaneo, 2015). To reclaim the possession of the land, Neff decided to sue Pennoyer at a federal court in Oregon. This was because Neff felt that the case and the initial judgment about the land lacked personal jurisdiction and should be treated as invalid. This is true because, at the time when Mitchel sued Neff for failing to settle the agreed legal fee, even the land had not been seized by the court and therefore it is right for Neff to state that there was the absence of a personal jurisdiction between him and the land in question. In making its decision regarding the case presented by Neff, the court found that the judgment that was in the lawsuit between Mitchel and Pennoyer was entirely invalid and for this reason, Neff was still the owner of the land (Loepp, 2007). This is because the state court did not keenly observe the issues at hand but instead ruled to satisfy the interest of Mitchel. Therefore, Pennoyer lost the land at the appeal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case.

In the judgment made by the court, Neff's case was confirmed. This is in line with the fact that it is not in order for a court to enter into judgment of a person not residing within the state unless otherwise such a person is adequately served with a notice regarding the case in question and must be within the state or in any case such a person had attached land at the time of the suit. It is right to state that in this case, all the facts mentioned above were not considered and it is understood that Neff was never served by the notice regarding the pending case in the court and the land had not been attached in the suit.

In observing the ruling of the court, initially at the state court, the verdict to auction Neff's land was against his wish because he was not served through a notice on the case in which Mitchel sued him for failing to settle the legal fee (Jasenovcani, 2015). The ruling that was made against Neff was against his rights as a non-resident because he was absent in the court during the court process that gave a decision to auction the land that had not been seized by the court. Additionally, the mentioning of the suit leading to the auctioning of the property was merely a mere publication because Neff was never personally served by any notice concerning the lawsuit. In giving solid reasoning to this, I would say that when a party is not informed about such proceedings which they should be a party to, there is a possibility that such proceedings and rulings would be the normal instruments of oppression and fraud. In this case, for example, Neff's land was used to satisfy a personal need by Mitchel.

The assumption that the property was related to Neff was out of order and should not have been considered an appropriate alternative. This was not in order as there was no agreement of property seizure in case Neff defaulted in paying him the legal fee (Dorsaneo, 2015). In my reasoning, the fact that Neff was not informed and also that the property was not attached at the time of adjudication makes the ruling invalid. Therefore, to satisfactorily give judgment on a non-resident, it is wise to follow a due judicial process which involves notifying and physical appearance of the defendant.

Conclusion

In giving my opinion, and in considering the above sentiments, I think the court made the right decision to confirm the decision that Neff still owned the land. This is because he was not informed nor did the property attached to the lawsuit at the point he was being sued. For a proper judgment, therefore, there should be a due process to ensure that all the parties are equally represented in the case. I, therefore, agree with the decision that the court made.

References

Dorsaneo III, W. V. (2015). Pennoyer Strikes Back: Personal Jurisdiction in a Global Age. Tex. A&M L. Rev., 3, 1.

Jasenovcanin, D. (2015). Crimes against property (Doctoral dissertation, Veleuciliste Lavoslav Ruzicka, Veleuciliste Lavoslav Ruzicka).

Loepp, B. M. (2007). Jones v. Flowers: What Is Required When the Notice Knows the Notice Has No Notice. Okla. City UL Rev., 32, 505.