Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Roller v. Holly

Supreme Court of the United States · 1900 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessNoticeJurisdiction in remFourteenth Amendmentdue process of lawreasonable noticenonresident defendants

Facts

Roller, a Virginia resident, bought Texas land and gave a purchase-money note that later came into the hands of McClintic & Proctor. They sued in Texas for a personal judgment and foreclosure of a vendor's lien, serving Roller in Virginia on December 30, 1890, to appear in Texas on January 5, 1891; default judgment and foreclosure were entered on January 9, and the land was sold. Before that suit began, Roller had already sold the land to the Hollys, retained a vendor's lien, and later sued to foreclose that lien. Defendants claiming under the earlier foreclosure argued that Roller's title had passed to them, while Roller argued the prior judgment was invalid because he received no process in Texas and the notice given from Virginia to appear in Texas was unreasonably short.

Issue

Whether notice served on a Virginia resident on December 30, 1890, requiring him to appear in a Texas foreclosure suit on January 5, 1891, was due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Also implicated was whether Texas courts could entertain such a foreclosure proceeding against a nonresident without a prior seizure of the land.

Rule

A state may authorize proceedings against nonresidents to foreclose liens or determine interests in land within the state, and no preliminary seizure is necessary when an existing lien is being enforced. But due process requires notice that is reasonable and adequate for the purpose; notice of only five days to a nonresident served far from the forum is not reasonable when the distance leaves virtually no practical opportunity to prepare and appear.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz, a resident of New Mexico, gave Red Mesa Funding a mortgage on ranch land in Oklahoma. After moving to Arizona, she was personally served there under an Oklahoma statute authorizing suits against absent and nonresident defendants in cases properly maintainable against them; the lender filed only to foreclose the mortgage on the Oklahoma land and sought no personal judgment.

Is the Oklahoma court's assertion of jurisdiction over the foreclosure action most likely proper?

Explanation. The majority opinion recognized that a state may entertain proceedings against nonresidents to foreclose existing liens on land within the state. It rejected the argument that prior seizure is always necessary where the lien already exists by mortgage, statute, or contract. A general statute governing absent and nonresident defendants may apply to all cases that may properly proceed against nonresidents, including foreclosure of liens.