Grannis v. Ordean

Syllabus

<p>Where the trial court did not infringe any Federal right of plaintiff in error, but the decision of the appellate court .ran counter to the alleged Federal right which was raised on petition for reargument and specif- . ically passed on and overruled in refusing the reargument, this court has jurisdiction under § 237, Judicial Code, to review the judgment.</p> <p>In determining what is due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a distinction between actions in personam and actions in rem; in the former judgments without personal service within the State are devoid of Validity either within or without the State but in the latter the judgment although based on service by publication may be valid so far as it affects property within the State. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714.</p> <p>Where a State has jurisdiction over the res the judgment of the court to which that jurisdiction is confided, in order to be binding with reápeet to the interest of a non-resident not served with process within the State, must be based upon constructive service by mailing, publication or otherwise in accordance with the law of the State.</p> <p>This court must exercise an independent judgment as to whether the process sanctioned by the court of last resort of the State constituted due process of law; it is not bound by, nor can it merely accept, the decision of the state court on that question.</p> <p>While the fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard, that does not impose an unattainable standard of accuracy; and a defendant served with process either personally, or by publication and mailing, in which his name is misspelled cannot safely ignore it on account of the misnomer.</p> <p>The general rule in cases of constructive service of process by publication tends to strictness, but even in names due process of law does not require ideal accuracy.</p> <p>In constructive service of process by publication and mailing where t