Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Flexner v. Farson

Supreme Court of Illinois · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionDue ProcessService of ProcessFull Faith and Creditdue processpersonal jurisdictionnonresident defendants

Facts

The underlying judgment was rendered by a Kentucky circuit court against Farson, Son & Co. In that Kentucky action, service on the appellee was not personal; it was made only by serving the alleged in-state agent of the partnership, Washington Flexner, under a Kentucky statute permitting service on the manager or agent of a nonresident individual or partnership doing business in Kentucky. In the Illinois enforcement action, only William Farson was served, and the validity of the Kentucky judgment depended on whether the Kentucky statute could constitutionally authorize that earlier service. The other members of the partnership were not found.

Issue

Does a Kentucky statute allowing service on the in-state agent of a nonresident partnership or individual engaged in business in Kentucky permit a constitutionally valid in personam judgment consistent with due process? Relatedly, must Illinois give effect to such a Kentucky judgment under full faith and credit if the Kentucky court lacked personal jurisdiction?

Rule

For a personal judgment against a nonresident individual, due process requires personal service within the state, appearance, or some other constitutionally sufficient basis of personal jurisdiction; constructive or substituted service is sufficient only where property has been brought under the court's control in an in rem proceeding. A nonresident individual's doing business in a state does not, by itself, imply consent to personal jurisdiction through service on an in-state agent, and if such service is unconstitutional as to an individual it is likewise unconstitutional as to a partnership.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Ruiz, a resident of New Mexico, regularly sends employees to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to solicit orders for her consulting business. A Tulsa client sued Elena in Oklahoma state court for unpaid commissions and served only Mateo Vance, Elena's in-state office manager, under an Oklahoma statute authorizing service on the local manager of a nonresident individual doing business in the state. Elena was never personally served in Oklahoma, did not appear, and no property was seized.

If the client later sues on the Oklahoma judgment in New Mexico, what is the strongest argument against enforcement?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a state may not enter a binding in personam judgment against a nonresident individual based solely on substituted service upon an in-state agent. Due process requires personal service within the state, appearance, or some constitutionally sufficient basis tied to property under the court's control in an in rem proceeding. Full faith and credit does not prevent the enforcing court from examining whether the rendering court had jurisdiction. (Derived from Flexner v. Farson (n.d.).)