Barrell v. Benjamin
15 Mass. 354 (1819)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court of general jurisdiction may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for a transitory cause of action if the defendant is physically present and served with process within the state, regardless of the defendant's temporary status or the location where the cause of action arose. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, citizens of other states are entitled to the same access to a state's courts as that state's own citizens.
Facts:
- The plaintiff is a United States citizen with a domicile in Connecticut.
- The defendant is a foreign national from Demerara.
- A personal contract was formed between the plaintiff and defendant in Demerara.
- The contract was to be performed in Demerara.
- The defendant was temporarily and physically present in Massachusetts for the purpose of embarking on a return voyage to Demerara.
- While the defendant was in Massachusetts, the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against him.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut, initiated a lawsuit against the defendant, a foreign national, in a Massachusetts state court.
- The defendant was served with process while temporarily present in Massachusetts.
- The defendant's counsel challenged the court's personal jurisdiction.
- The case was presented to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on an agreed statement of facts to resolve the legal question of jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Massachusetts state court have personal jurisdiction over a lawsuit between a U.S. citizen from another state and a foreigner, when the foreigner is only temporarily present in Massachusetts, for a contract made and to be performed in the foreigner's home country?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, C. J.
Yes, a Massachusetts state court has personal jurisdiction in this case. Personal, or transitory, actions follow the person of the debtor, and jurisdiction can be established wherever the debtor is found. The court rejected the argument that the defendant's temporary presence for travel purposes should defeat jurisdiction, noting the risk that a creditor could lose the ability to collect a debt if a debtor could avoid suit by moving between jurisdictions. More decisively, the plaintiff is a citizen of Connecticut, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2) guarantees that citizens of each state are entitled to all the privileges of citizens in the several states. Since a citizen of Massachusetts would have the privilege of suing a foreigner found within the state's borders, a citizen of Connecticut must be afforded the same right.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision establishing the principle of transient personal jurisdiction, often called 'tag jurisdiction.' It affirms that the physical presence of a defendant within a state's borders is a sufficient basis for its courts to assert jurisdiction over that person for any personal claim, even one unrelated to their activities in the state. The ruling's reliance on the Privileges and Immunities Clause is also significant, as it reinforces the constitutional mandate for interstate equality in accessing judicial remedies. This principle of jurisdiction based on mere presence remained a cornerstone of American civil procedure for over a century and was later upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Burnham v. Superior Court.
