Harkness v. Hyde
25 L. Ed. 237, 98 U.S. 476, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1408 (1879)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Service of process made outside the territorial jurisdiction of a court is invalid and does not confer personal jurisdiction over the defendant. A defendant does not waive an objection to improper service by making a special appearance to contest jurisdiction and then, after the objection is overruled, defending the case on the merits.
Facts:
- A defendant, Harkness, was sued in the Territory of Idaho for maliciously procuring the seizure of property.
- Harkness resided on the Shoshonee Indian reservation.
- A sheriff from Oneida County, Idaho Territory, served a summons and complaint on Harkness at his residence on the reservation.
- The Act of Congress organizing the Idaho Territory explicitly excluded Indian territory from its boundaries and jurisdiction unless the tribe consented.
- A treaty with the Shoshonee set apart the reservation for their "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation," and the tribe had not consented to be included within the Idaho Territory's jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture:
- Hyde sued Harkness in a district court of the Territory of Idaho.
- Harkness, the defendant, made a special appearance to move for dismissal, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because service was made on an Indian reservation.
- The motion was referred to the Supreme Court of the Territory, which overruled it.
- The case was remanded to the district court, where Harkness answered the complaint and proceeded to trial.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and after a reduction in damages, a final judgment was entered against Harkness.
- Harkness appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory, which affirmed the district court's judgment.
- Harkness, the appellant, then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
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 process on a defendant within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, which is legally excluded from the jurisdiction of a territory, confer personal jurisdiction over that defendant to a court of that territory?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
No. Service of process outside a court's territorial limits is invalid and confers no personal jurisdiction. The Shoshonee reservation, by treaty and statute, was as much beyond the jurisdiction of the Idaho territorial government as a foreign state. The sheriff's service of process on the reservation was therefore an unlawful act that could not compel the defendant's appearance in court. The defendant did not waive his objection to this illegal service by first appearing specially to contest jurisdiction and then, after that motion was overruled, answering the complaint and defending the action on the merits. A party is not considered to have abandoned a jurisdictional objection simply because they participate in proceedings after the court has erroneously overruled that objection.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the foundational principle of territorial jurisdiction, holding that a court's power is strictly limited by its geographical boundaries. It establishes a critical procedural rule: a defendant can challenge personal jurisdiction and, if unsuccessful, still proceed to defend the case on the merits without waiving the initial jurisdictional objection for appeal. This prevents defendants from being forced to choose between defaulting on a claim or submitting to a court's improper assertion of power, thereby preserving a key due process protection.
