Garfein v. McInnis
248 N.Y. 261, 162 N.E. 73 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property located within the forum state, provided a state statute allows the court's decree to directly affect the property's title, thereby rendering the action substantially in rem.
Facts:
- An alleged contract existed for the conveyance of real property located in the State of New York.
- The defendant, a party to the alleged contract, was a resident of the State of Connecticut.
- The plaintiff sought specific performance to compel the defendant to convey the New York-based property according to the contract's terms.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed an action for specific performance in a New York court.
- The summons and complaint were served upon the defendant in the State of Connecticut.
- The defendant moved in the trial court to set aside the service, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion.
- The defendant appealed the denial, and the appellate court certified the question of jurisdiction to the New York Court of Appeals.
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 service of a summons on a non-resident defendant outside of New York grant a New York court jurisdiction to hear an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property located within New York?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehman, J.
Yes. A New York court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the specific performance action because state statutes have transformed the nature of the remedy from purely in personam to substantially in rem. Traditionally, a court of equity acted only upon the person (in personam), meaning it could not obtain jurisdiction over a non-resident served outside its territory. However, the New York Civil Practice Act provides that if a party disobeys a judgment directing a conveyance of real property, the court may order the sheriff to execute the conveyance. This statute allows the court's decree to operate directly on the property itself, not just on the person of the defendant. Because the court has the power to enforce its judgment and transfer title to property within the state, regardless of whether the non-resident defendant obeys, the action affects the property directly (in rem). Therefore, constructive service outside the state is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for the purpose of granting a judgment that acts upon the in-state property.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant evolution from the traditional limitations of equity jurisdiction, which strictly required personal jurisdiction over a defendant. By recognizing that a state statute can change the nature of an action from purely in personam to in rem, the court empowered states to resolve disputes over real estate within their borders, even when a party is outside the state. This strengthens state sovereignty over property and ensures that plaintiffs have an effective remedy in local real estate transactions involving out-of-state parties. The case is a foundational example of how legislatures can expand court jurisdiction to meet modern needs by creating remedies that act directly on property.
Unlock the full brief for Garfein v. McInnis