HomeCase briefs › Civil Procedure

McDonald v. Mabee

Supreme Court of the United States · 1917 · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionDue ProcessService of Processpersonal jurisdictiondue processservice by publicationpersonal judgment

Facts

This case involved a suit on a promissory note, with the material defense being an earlier Texas judgment on the same note that purported both to foreclose a lien and to bind the defendant personally. When that earlier suit began, Mabee was technically domiciled in Texas but had left the state intending to establish his home elsewhere, although his family still lived there. After a brief return to Texas, he later established domicile in Missouri. In the earlier suit, the only service after his final departure was publication in a local newspaper once a week for four consecutive weeks, and he did not appear.

Issue

Whether a state may, consistent with due process, enter an ordinary personal money judgment against a defendant who has left the state intending not to return, based solely on service by publication in a local newspaper. Relatedly, the Court considered whether such a judgment, if invalid for lack of due process, is ineffective both outside the state and within the rendering state.

Rule

An ordinary personal judgment for money is invalid if the defendant was not served in a manner amounting to due process of law. Service by publication in a local newspaper is not sufficient to bind personally a person who has left the state intending not to return; when personal service is dispensed with, the substitute used must at least be the method most likely to reach the defendant if substantial justice is to be done.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Lena Ortiz moved from Arizona to Oregon, telling neighbors in Phoenix that she was leaving for good. A lender then sued her in Arizona on an unpaid personal loan and obtained a money judgment after publishing notice for four weeks in a Phoenix newspaper; Lena never appeared.

If Lena later challenges the Arizona judgment, how should a court rule?

Explanation. For an ordinary personal money judgment, due process requires service on the person, appearance, or a substitute notice amounting to due process. The majority held that publication in a local newspaper is not sufficient to bind personally a person who has left the state intending not to return. Such a judgment is void, not merely voidable.