New York Life Insurance Co. v. Dunlevy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy
9th Cir. 1914); cert. granted, 235 U.S. 705 (1914).
Holding
No personal jurisdiction can be had over claimants in an interpleader who are physically absent from the state or have not consented to the court's jurisdiction.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · Charles E. Hughes
Willis Van Devanter · Mahlon Pitney
James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis
Case opinion
MajorityMcReynolds
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U.S. 518 (1916), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a court can exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party in an interpleader if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Joseph W. Gould, obtained a

citizens and domiciliaries of Pennsylvania
. In 1907, Boggs & Buhl, a law firm, recovered a valid
garnishees
. He appeared, denied assignment of the policy, and claimed the full amount due thereon. On January 14, 1910 Mrs. Dunlevy instituted this suit in the
Marin County
, California, against the insurance company and to recover $2,479.70, the surrender value of a policy on his life which she claimed had been assigned to her, and both were duly served with process while in that state. On February 5, 1910, after this suit was begun in California, the company answered, admitted its indebtedness, set up the conflicting claims to the fund, and prayed to be advised as to its rights. At the same time it filed a petition asking for an interpleader, and thereby ascertain who was lawfully entitled to the proceeds, and, further, that it might be allowed to pay amount due into court for benefit of proper party.on March 21, 1910 an order granted the requested, and directed that notice be given to Mrs. Dunlevy in California. This was done, but she made no answer and did not appear. Later, the insurance company filed a second petition, and, upon leave obtained thereunder, paid $2,479.70 into court, . All parties except Mrs. Dunlevy having appeared, the suit was tried on a feigned issue to determine validity of alleged transfer of the policy. The jury found, October 1, 1910, there was no valid assignment, and thereupon, under a court order the fund was paid over to Gould. The California suit was
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.[3]

In 1909 under Pennsylvania law, a judgment debtor is not a party to a garnishment proceeding to condemn a claim due the judgment debtor from a third person, nor is the judgment debtor bound by a judgment discharging the garnishee.[4]

Issue and result

The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Pennsylvania proceeding was a

domiciliary of the state nor served with process within its border, no matter what the mode of service, is void because the court has no personal jurisdiction. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714
.

Subsequent history

The

United States District Courts and providing nationwide service of process, minimal diversity jurisdiction of two or more of the beneficiaries must live in different states and a lower amount in controversy of at least $500.[5]

See also

References

  1. ^ N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U.S. 518 (1916).
  2. N.D. Cal.
    1913).
  3. 9th Cir.
    1914).
  4. ^ Ruff v. Ruff, 85 Pa. 333 (1878).
  5. ^ Cleary, James T. "Federal Interpleader and Some Recent Cases". Georgetown Law Journal. 26: 1017.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Life_Insurance_Co._v._Dunlevy&oldid=1175147629"