From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hess v. Pawloski

U.S.
May 16, 1927
274 U.S. 352 (1927)

Summary

holding that Massachusetts's exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state motorist involved in an accident in the state did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment

Summary of this case from Perdue v. Harrison

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 263.

Argued April 18, 1927. Decided May 16, 1927.

Massachusetts Gen. Ls., c. 90, as amended by Stat. 1923, c. 431, § 2, which declares that use of the State's highways by a non-resident motorist shall be deemed equivalent to an appointment by him of the registrar as his attorney upon whom process may be served in any action growing out of any accident or collision in which the non-resident may be involved while operating a motor vehicle upon such highways, and which provides for service in such case by leaving a copy of the process and a fee with the registrar or in his office, but conditions the sufficiency of the service upon the sending of notice of it forthwith and a copy of the process to the defendant by registered mail and upon his actually receiving and receipting for the same, and which allows the non-resident when so served such continuances as may be necessary to afford him a reasonable opportunity to defend the action, — held not in conflict with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160. P. 355. 250 Mass. 22; 253 Mass. 478, affirmed.

ERROR to a judgment of the Superior Court of Worcester County, Massachusetts, entered on rescript from the Supreme Judicial Court, sustaining a verdict for damages in an action for personal injuries inflicted on Pawloski, the plaintiff, by the negligent driving of a motor vehicle, by Hess, non-resident defendant, on a Massachusetts highway.

Mr. George Gowen Parry for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Harry John Meleski was on the brief for defendant in error.


This action was brought by defendant in error to recover damages for personal injuries. The declaration alleged that plaintiff in error negligently and wantonly drove a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts and that by reason thereof the vehicle struck and injured defendant in error. Plaintiff in error is a resident of Pennsylvania. No personal service was made on him and no property belonging to him was attached. The service of process was made in compliance with c. 90, General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended by Stat. 1923, c. 431, § 2, the material parts of which follow:

"The acceptance by a non-resident of the rights and privileges conferred by section three or four, as evidenced by his operating a motor vehicle thereunder, or the operation by a non-resident of a motor vehicle on a public way in the commonwealth other than under said sections, shall be deemed equivalent to an appointment by such non-resident of the registrar or his successor in office, to be his true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful processes in any action or proceeding against him, growing out of any accident or collision in which said non-resident may be involved while operating a motor vehicle on such a way, and said acceptance or operation shall be a signification of his agreement that any such process against him which is so served shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served on him personally. Service of such process shall be made by leaving a copy of the process with a fee of two dollars in the hands of the registrar, or in his office, and such service shall be sufficient service upon the said non-resident; provided, that notice of such service and a copy of the process are forthwith sent by registered mail by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant's return receipt and the plaintiff's affidavit of compliance herewith are appended to the writ and entered with the declaration. The court in which the action is pending may order such continuances as may be necessary to afford the defendant reasonable opportunity to defend the action."

Plaintiff in error appeared specially for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction and filed an answer in abatement and moved to dismiss on the ground that the service of process, if sustained, would deprive him of his property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court overruled the answer in abatement and denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court held the statute to be a valid exercise of the police power, and affirmed the order. 250 Mass. 22. At the trial the contention was renewed and again denied. Plaintiff in error excepted. The jury returned a verdict for defendant in error. The exceptions were overruled by the Supreme Judicial Court. 253 Mass. 478. Thereupon the Superior Court entered judgment. The writ of error was allowed by the chief justice of that court.

The question is whether the Massachusetts enactment contravenes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The process of a court of one State cannot run into another and summon a party there domiciled to respond to proceedings against him. Notice sent outside the State to a non-resident is unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him personally for money recovery. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714. There must be actual service within the State of notice upon him or upon some one authorized to accept service for him. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518. A personal judgment rendered against a non-resident who has neither been served with process nor appeared in the suit is without validity. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90. The mere transaction of business in a State by non-resident natural persons does not imply consent to be bound by the process of its courts. Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289. The power of a State to exclude foreign corporations, although not absolute but qualified, is the ground on which such an implication is supported as to them. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., 243 U.S. 93, 96. But a State may not withhold from non-resident individuals the right of doing business therein. The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, § 2, Art. IV, safeguards to the citizens of one State the right "to pass through, or to reside in any other state for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise." And it prohibits state legislation discriminating against citizens of other States, Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wn. C.C. 371, 381; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 430; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180.

Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. The measure in question operates to require a non-resident to answer for his conduct in the State where arise causes of action alleged against him, as well as to provide for a claimant a convenient method by which he may sue to enforce his rights. Under the statute the implied consent is limited to proceedings growing out of accidents or collisions on a highway in which the non-resident may be involved. It is required that he shall actually receive and receipt for notice of the service and a copy of the process. And it contemplates such continuances as may be found necessary to give reasonable time and opportunity for defense. It makes no hostile discrimination against non-residents but tends to put them on the same footing as residents. Literal and precise equality in respect of this matter is not attainable; it is not required. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 561-562. The State's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622. And, in advance of the operation of a motor vehicle on its highway by a non-resident, the State may require him to appoint one of its officials as his agent on whom process may be served in proceedings growing out of such use. Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 167. That case recognizes power of the State to exclude a non-resident until the formal appointment is made. And, having the power so to exclude, the State may declare that the use of the highway by the non-resident is the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as agent on whom process may be served. Cf. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., supra, 96; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 407-408. The difference between the formal and implied appointment is not substantial so far as concerns the application of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Hess v. Pawloski

U.S.
May 16, 1927
274 U.S. 352 (1927)

holding that Massachusetts's exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state motorist involved in an accident in the state did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment

Summary of this case from Perdue v. Harrison

upholding service of process by registered mail

Summary of this case from Schmitt v. Schmitt

upholding constitutionality of statute similar to Tennessee Non-Resident Motorist Statute

Summary of this case from Gwaltney v. Stone

affirming 250 Mass. 22, 144 N.E. 760, 35 A.L.R. 945

Summary of this case from C.I.T. Corporation v. Crosby Co.

approving registered mail

Summary of this case from Chairez v. U.S.

rejecting due-process challenge to state implied-consent law authorizing personal jurisdiction over nonresidents for claims arising from their use of motor vehicles in the state

Summary of this case from GJP, Inc. v. Ghosh

sustaining the constitutionality of a substituted service statute designed to cope with automobile accidents by out of state defendants

Summary of this case from Simon v. Philip Morris Incorporated

sustaining the constitutionality of a substituted service statute designed to cope with automobile accidents by out of state defendants

Summary of this case from Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

sustaining the constitutionality of a substituted service statute designed to cope with automobile accidents by out of state defendants

Summary of this case from Simon v. Philip Morris Incorporated

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927), the Court recognized for the first time that service by registered mail, in place of personal service, may satisfy the requirements of due process.

Summary of this case from Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams

In Hess v. Pawloski, 1927, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091, there is some, though not very much, language which would support the view that jurisdiction over nonresident motorists is based on their implied consent, "but the tendency in later cases is to recognize that the real basis is that of public policy and convenience."

Summary of this case from McCoy v. Siler

concerning the constitutionality of service of process on a non-resident motorist

Summary of this case from Cormier v. Fisher

In Pawloski, the Court held constitutional a Massachusetts statute which allowed a plaintiff to serve process on a non-resident defendant by delivering service to the Massachusetts registrar, sending by registered mail notice of such service to the defendant, and by attaching an affidavit of compliance and the defendant's return receipt to the writ.

Summary of this case from Banks v. Leon

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Massachusetts statute which permitted service of a nonresident motorist, in an action arising from an accident in Massachusetts, on the Secretary of State. The statute required the Secretary of State to send a copy of the service to the defendant by registered mail.

Summary of this case from Community Thrift Club v. Dearborn Acceptance Corp.

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Massachusetts Statute which provided for mailing a copy of the process served on the registrar by registered mail to a nonresident defendant and the defendant's return receipt.

Summary of this case from Combs v. Chambers

driving an automobile upon the highways of the forum state

Summary of this case from Hamilton National Bank of Chattanooga v. Russell

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 633, 71 L.Ed. 1091, the Supreme Court sustained the federal constitutional validity of the similar and original Massachusetts statute regarding nonresident motorists (M.G.L.A. c. 90 § 3A). Probably the most significant sentence in that opinion was "The difference between the formal and implied appointment is not substantial, so far as concerns the application of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Summary of this case from Leszynski v. Russ

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091, the Supreme Court approved, against constitutional attack, service of summons under the Massachusetts nonresident motorist statute on the theory of implied consent predicated on the use of the state's highways by the nonresident.

Summary of this case from Tardiff v. Bank Line

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091, the Supreme Court upholds a Massachusetts Statute similar to our Texas Statute (Article 2039A, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.), to the effect that by the use of the highways of a State, the non-resident owner of an automobile submits himself to the jurisdiction of, and consents to be sued in, the courts of that State.

Summary of this case from Andrews v. Joseph Cohen Sons

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 633, 71 L. Ed. 1091, the Massachusetts statute was held to be constitutional.

Summary of this case from Carr v. Tennis

In Hess, a resident plaintiff brought suit against an out-of-state defendant as a result of an automobile accident in the forum state.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Hernandez-Gonzalez

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 71 L.Ed. 1091, 47 S.Ct. 632, the high court upheld a "long arm statute" against constitutional attack.

Summary of this case from Pinkerton v. Schwiethale

In Hess, the Supreme Court held constitutional a Massachusetts statute subjecting non-residents to extraterritorial jurisdiction for disputes arising out of the operation of motor vehicles on the state's public highways, because of the state's power to regulate local acts dangerous to life and property.

Summary of this case from Van Wagenberg v. Van Wagenberg

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927), the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of a non-resident motorist statute which provided that the mere act of driving an automobile in a state should be deemed an appointment of a named state official as agent to receive service in a suit arising out of the operation of the motor vehicle on the highway of such state.

Summary of this case from New York Times Company v. Sullivan

In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 633, 71 L.Ed. 1091, it was held that a Massachusetts statute for service on nonresident motorists did not contravene the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That statute authorized service on a state officer, provided for sending a copy of the process by registered mail to the nonresident, but "required that he shall actually receive and receipt for notice of service and a copy of the process."

Summary of this case from Parker v. Bond
Case details for

Hess v. Pawloski

Case Details

Full title:HESS v . PAWLOSKI

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 16, 1927

Citations

274 U.S. 352 (1927)
47 S. Ct. 632

Citing Cases

Wuchter v. Pizzutti

Mr. James D. Carpenter, Jr., for plaintiff in error. This case is not controlled by Hess v. Pawloski, 274…

Olberding v. Illinois Central R. Co.

Ky. Rev. Stat., 1953, §§ 188.020-188.030. The Kentucky statute, like the one upheld in Hess v. Pawloski, 274…