Pennington v. Fourth National Bank of Cincinnati
1917 U.S. LEXIS 2112, 37 S. Ct. 282, 243 U.S. 269 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant's property located within the state to satisfy a claim for alimony, and such a proceeding does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the property is seized at the commencement of the action and the defendant is given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Facts:
- Mr. Pennington, a non-resident of Ohio, maintained a deposit account at the Fourth National Bank of Cincinnati.
- His wife, Mrs. Pennington, filed a suit for divorce and alimony in an Ohio state court.
- At the start of the suit, the Ohio court issued a preliminary order enjoining the bank from paying out any part of Mr. Pennington's deposit.
- The court subsequently ordered the bank to make payments from the account to Mrs. Pennington for alimony.
- Finally, the court ordered the bank to pay the entire remaining balance to Mrs. Pennington, which the bank did.
- After the funds were disbursed, Mr. Pennington presented a check for the full amount of his original deposit to the bank.
- The bank refused to honor the check.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Pennington sued Mr. Pennington for divorce and alimony in an Ohio state court, joining the Fourth National Bank as a co-defendant to secure the funds in his account.
- The Ohio court granted the divorce and ordered the bank to pay Mr. Pennington's deposit to Mrs. Pennington.
- Mr. Pennington subsequently filed a separate, independent action against the Fourth National Bank in another Ohio state court to recover the amount of his deposit.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the bank.
- Pennington, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Pennington, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which also affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- Pennington then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for review on a writ of error.
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 an Ohio court's order, based on service by publication to a non-resident defendant, to seize the defendant's in-state bank deposit and pay it to his wife as alimony, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brandeis
No. The Ohio court's order did not violate the Due Process Clause because a state has jurisdiction over property within its borders, regardless of the owner's residence. This power allows a state to seize a non-resident's property to satisfy a legal obligation through a quasi in rem proceeding. The Court reasoned that a bank deposit is a form of intangible property within the state. While substituted service by publication cannot support a personal judgment, it is sufficient for a judgment against the property itself. The Court rejected the argument that alimony is different from a pre-existing debt, stating the state's power is the same for inchoate claims as it is for liquidated ones. The essential requirements for such jurisdiction—presence of the res, seizure at the commencement of proceedings, and an opportunity for the owner to be heard—were all met. The initial injunction against the bank was deemed an effective seizure of the property.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the scope of quasi in rem jurisdiction, particularly in the context of domestic relations law. It establishes that an inchoate claim, such as one for alimony that only arises from the litigation itself, is a sufficient basis for seizing a non-resident's in-state property. The case is significant for confirming that equitable processes, like an injunction, can satisfy the 'seizure' requirement for establishing jurisdiction over the property. This broadens the tools available to plaintiffs seeking to enforce obligations against non-resident defendants who hold assets within the forum state.
