Restatement (First) of the Conflict of Laws
Personal Jurisdiction
§ 78. Individual Voluntarily Within The State
A
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over an individual
voluntarily within its territory whether he is permanently or only
temporarily there.
Illustration:
1. A brings an action
against B in a court of state X. B is domiciled in and a citizen of
state Y, but is stopping at a hotel in X. In accordance with a statute,
process is served upon B by mail, the process being duly received by B
at the hotel. The court has jurisdiction over B.
§ 79. Individual Domiciled Within The State
A
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over an individual
domiciled within the state, although he is not present within the state.
Illustrations:
1.
A brings an action against B in a court of state X. B is domiciled in X
but is in state Y. In accordance with a statute, process is served upon
B by handing a summons to B in Y. The court has jurisdiction over B.
2.
A brings an action against B in a court of state X. B is domiciled in
X, but is in state Y. In accordance with a statute, process is served
upon B by delivering a summons at his “usual place of abode” in X to an
adult member of his family. The court has jurisdiction over B.
§ 82. Appearance
An
appearance by a defendant in an action gives the court jurisdiction
over him for all purposes of the action if by the law of the state in
which the action is brought the appearance has that effect.
Comment:
a.
What law determines effect of special appearance to object to
jurisdiction. It is a question determined by the law of the state in
which the action is brought whether an appearance entered by a
defendant in an action is of such a character as to subject him to the
jurisdiction of the court. If, by the law of the state in which an
action is brought, an appearance by a defendant solely for the purpose
of objecting that the court has no jurisdiction over him, gives the
court jurisdiction over the defendant, such an appearance subjects a
defendant to the jurisdiction of the court so that the judgment
rendered against him after such appearance will be recognized in other
states as valid. His appearance in the action entails the consequence
of subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the court although he does not
intend and expressly states that he does not intend his appearance to
have that consequence. By the law of most states, an appearance entered
by a defendant solely for the purpose of objecting that the court has
no jurisdiction over him does not subject him to the jurisdiction of
the court.
b. An appearance entered by a defendant for a purpose
other than to object that the court has no jurisdiction over him is
usually held to subject him to the jurisdiction of the court.
c.
Effect of special appearance to remove to federal court. An appearance
in an action brought in a court of a State of the United States for the
purpose of presenting to the court a petition for removal of the action
to a federal court does not give jurisdiction over him either to the
State court or to the federal court.
§ 94. Decree To Be Carried Out In Another State
A
state can exercise jurisdiction through its courts to make a decree
directing a party subject to the jurisdiction of the court to do an act
in another state, provided such act is not contrary to the law of the
state in which it is to be performed.
Illustrations:
2. A
court of equity is asked to enjoin a defendant from so using his
property in a foreign state as, by the law of that state, to constitute
a nuisance. The court has jurisdiction to make the order.
§ 96. Enjoining Acts In Another State
A
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction to forbid a party,
who is subject to its jurisdiction, to do an act in another state.
Illustrations:
1.
A brings suit in state X against B to enjoin the performance in state Y
of a copyrighted play. The court may issue the injunction.
2. A
brings suit against B in state X to restrain B from repeatedly
trespassing on A's land in state Y. The court may issue the injunction.
§ 97. Decree Affecting Thing In Another State
A
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction to order or to
forbid the doing of an act within the state, although to carry out the
decree may involve doing an act or affecting a thing in another state.
Comment:
a.
A court will frequently order a party who is subject to its
jurisdiction to execute and deliver a deed of land situated in another
state.
Illustrations:
2. A brings suit against B in
Illinois for specific performance of a contract to convey land in Iowa,
and B is served with process. The court may order B to make the
conveyance.
b. When jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised. If
land can be transferred only by an act done by the defendant within the
state where the land is, the court of another state will ordinarily not
order him to transfer the land (see § 94, Comment b).
d. An
injunction may be granted against doing an act within the state even
though the parties enjoined can obey the injunction only by acting in
another state or causing an act to be done there.
Illustration:
8.
By building a dam in state X, B wrongfully floods A's land in state Y.
A files a bill in Y to enjoin B from flooding his land and B is served
with process within Y. The court may grant the injunction against
flooding the land although it can be obeyed only by removing the dam in
X.
§ 98. Extent Of Jurisdiction Over Things
[A] state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over things within its territory.
§ 101. Jurisdiction Over Land
A
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over land situated
within the territory of the state, although a person owning or claiming
an interest in the land is not personally subject to the jurisdiction
of the state.
Illustrations:
4. In accordance with a
statute of state X, A, claiming to own land in X, brings an action to
quiet title. B, an adverse claimant, is not subject to the jurisdiction
of X. The court may bar the claim of B.
6. A contracts to sell
to B land situated in state X. B brings a suit in X for specific
performance. A is not subject to the jurisdiction of X. Under a statute
of X allowing it to do so, the court may make an order vesting title to
the land in B.
8. Under a statute of state X, a proceeding is
brought in X to sell land situated in X for nonpayment of taxes. A, the
owner of the land, is not subject to the jurisdiction of X. The court
may order A's interest in the land sold.
§ 102. Jurisdiction Over Chattel
[A]
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over a chattel
within the territory of the state, though a person owning or claiming
the chattel or an interest in the chattel is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the state.
§ 105. Continuation Of Jurisdiction
If,
in an action, a court obtains jurisdiction over a thing, that
jurisdiction continues throughout all subsequent proceedings which
arise out of the original cause of action until the court voluntarily
surrenders jurisdiction over it.
Comment:
a. If a court has
once obtained any jurisdiction over a thing, that jurisdiction is not
lost by the wrongful removal of the thing from the state.
Illustration:
1.
An action is brought by A against B in a court of state X and a horse
in X is attached. B wrongfully takes the horse from the possession of
the sheriff and removes it to state Y. C brings an action against B in
a court of Y and attaches the horse. The court of X still has
jurisdiction over the horse.
§ 106. Application Of Things To Payment Of Claims
[A]
state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction to apply to the
satisfaction of a claim, interests in things subject to the
jurisdiction of the state, belonging to the person against whom the
claim is asserted, although the state has no jurisdiction over him.
Comment:
a.
The jurisdiction stated in this Section is commonly exercised through a
proceeding begun by an attachment or by a bill in equity. A judgment
rendered in such a proceeding is effective solely against interests in
tangible things which are within the state. It is not effective against
interests in tangible things not within the state, nor is it effective
to impose a personal liability upon the person against whom the claim
is asserted, if he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state.
Illustration:
1.
A brings an action against B for debt in a court of state X. B is not
subject to the jurisdiction of X, but a horse in X belonging to B is
attached. B fails to appear. The court has jurisdiction to render a
judgment under which the horse may be sold on execution; but no other
property of B can be sold and the judgment does not impose a personal
liability upon B.
c. Necessity of attachment before judgment.
This jurisdiction cannot be exercised except by a proceeding in which a
thing is seized or a claim is directed against the thing.
Illustration:
2.
A brings an action against B for debt in a court of state X. B is not
subject to the jurisdiction of X, and no land or chattel of B is
attached. B fails to appear. Judgment is given against B by default.
Execution is levied on a horse of B in X and the horse is sold to C. C
acquires no title to the horse.