frain from doing a certain act, not involving a judgment for the payment of money, then the proceeding is a proceeding in personam. As was shown by the cases of Penn v. Lord Baltimore (22) and Massie v. Watts (23), if the only purpose is to compel a defendant to make a deed or do a similar act, the only nation that can supply the court is the nation where the defendant is found. This is not true, as has been seen, where the purpose is merely to procure a declaration of an interest in property or a decree cutting off a claim to it.

A third form of proceeding is that known as a proceeding quasi in rem. Instances of this kind of a proceeding will follow. It will be noted in those proceedings that the purpose is twofold: First, to procure a finding that a certain sum of money is due the moving party; second, to apply certain property in the possession of the court to the payment of the amount found due. The property is placed in the court's possession by virtue of its being attached by its officer, and, consequently, the proceeding is commonly called an attachment or garnishment proceeding. The remaining portion of this Section deals with proceedings quasi in rem and ascertains what nation may supply the tribunal in which to bring them.

§ 116. Extra-territorial attachment by a court is void. In Sutherland v. Second National Bank (24) the plaintiff brought suit in Kentucky and attached a carload of oats in possession of a Kentucky railroad, whose line extended through portions of both Illinois and Kentucky.

(22) $113, above. (23) $114, above.

(24) 78 Kentucky, 250.

At the time the suit was brought and the attachment levied, the oats were on their way to Kentucky, but were still in Illinois. The defendant was a non-resident and had not been served with process. The court held that although the railroad, in whose possession the oats was, was in Kentucky, the property sought to be reached was without its jurisdiction, and the process of the Kentucky courts could not reach it nor subject it to an attachment. The courts of one state are powerless to seize upon property in another. The principle is closely allied to the inability of courts of one state to serve a defendant who is at the time of service in another (25). The court can no more send its officers beyond its boundaries to seize property, than it can to serve a defendant with process. The officer's power ceases at the state line. For this reason its power over both fails.

§ 117. Domestic attachment of non-resident's property necessary for valid judgment quasi in rem. The leading case upon the subject is Pennoyer v. Neff (25a). The owner of a tract of land situated in Oregon was sued by another upon a demand for services as an attorney. The debtor was a non-resident and he was served by publication. A personal judgment was entered against him, and his land was then for the first time attached under an execution and sold to satisfy the judgment. Subsequently the owner brough a suit against the purchaser at the execution sale for possession. The suit proceeded upon the theory that the judgment under which the land was sold was void for want of jurisdiction of

(25) 88105, 106.

(25a) 95 U. S., 714.

the court. It was claimed that seizure of the property before judgment was essential. The Supreme Court of the United States held the judgment was void. Wherever an attempt is made to give effect in one state to personal judgments rendered in another against non-residents without actual service upon them, that is, merely upon substituted service by publication, or in some other form, the rule is that such judgments are without any binding force, except as to property within the state. To reach and effect this must be the object of the action in which the judgment is rendered, and the property must be brought under control of the court in connection with the proceeding against the person, and before judgment. The Supreme Court recognized the principle of natural justice and the rule of Conflict of Laws underlying this case. It recognized that, even in the absence of the Federal Constitution, a judgment procured without a prior seizure of the property would be of no validity or force in another state. It stated that it was not necessary under the full faith and credit clause that courts should enforce such a judgment, as only the judgments that had the sanction of the requirements of the law of nations could be included in that clause, and also stated that judgments, procured as was the judgment in that case, were invalid even in the state where they were rendered, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property without due process of law.

§ 118. Courts of situs may validly attach domestic property or debt owned by non-resident. It has been seen that the courts of one state are powerless to attach a non

resident's property which is situated in a foreign state (§ 116, above). The next inquiry is with reference to the power of a court to attach property situated in the state, where the owner is a non-resident or where such non-resident has a debt due him from a person or corporation within the jurisdiction of the court. In such a case the rule is settled that the court has jurisdiction to seize the property or money, and, after notice by publication, merely, to the non-resident owner, to apply it in payment of the claim. In Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway v. Sturm (26) the plaintiff, a resident of Kansas, sued the company, an Iowa corporation, which also did business in Kansas, on a claim for wages. The company answered that it had been joined with plaintiff as a defendant, in an attachment suit in Iowa brought by a creditor of plaintiff, and that it had paid the same money now claimed to the creditor in the Iowa proceeding. The service on plaintiff in the Iowa proceeding had been by publication of notice in a newspaper. The United States Supreme Court held that the company had authority to pay the money under a judgment procured under the circumstances stated, and that the judgment was such that it must be recognized as of binding force in the courts of Kansas. In the Sturm case the debtor company was permanently located in Iowa, the state in which the judgment in attachment was procured. It has been held the result would be the same even though the debtor were only temporarily in the jurisdiction of the attaching court (27).

From the preceding cases it follows that the courts of a state where a non-resident has property, or where proper service is obtained upon a debtor owing him a debt, have jurisdiction to attach such property or to garnishee such a claim, and to apply the property in satisfaction of the attaching and garnishing creditor, even though the owner of the property or claim is in the jurisdiction of a foreign state.

SECTION 3. DIVORCE.

§ 119. In general: Jurisdiction dependent on domicile. As explained in the preceding Sections, a valid personal money judgment may be obtained in any court that properly serves a defendant with process, even though the latter be found only temporarily in the jurisdiction. A valid judgment concerning property can be given if the property is within the jurisdiction of the court. The rules of law concerning a court's jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce differ considerably from those concerning its power to render a valid money judgment, or one affecting property. The rules of Conflict of Laws recognize in the jurisdiction of the domicile of either, or perhaps of both, parties an interest in the marriage relation, so intimate, and so important to the state, that the jurisdiction of the domicile is alone competent to sever the marriage relation.

§ 120. Courts of residence of parties no jurisdiction for divorce: In state where rendered. The jurisdiction of the residence, where that differs from the domicile, has no authority or power to dissolve the relation of husband and wife. In Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier (28) (28) [1895] A. C. 517.