XI. Procedure vs. Substance; Restatement of Conflict of Laws.
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, 1934
' § 84 Jurisdiction over One Who Acts in State.
'A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over an individual who has done an act within the state, as to cause of action arising out of such act, if, by the law of the state at the time when the act was done, a person by doing the act subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the state as to such cause of action.'
idem. 1948 supplement
' § 84 Jurisdiction Over One Who Does Acts or Owns Things in State
'A court by proper service of process may acquire jurisdiction over an individual not domiciled within the state who does acts or owns things in a state which are of a sort dangerous to life or property, as to causes of action arising out of such acts or such ownership, if a statute of the state so provides at the time when the cause of action arises.'
'Special note: * * * When the Restatement of Conflict of Laws was formulated * * * not even Hess v. Pawloski, 1927, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 71 L. Ed. 1091, was decided. * * *'
Restatement of the Law Second. Tentative Draft No. 3. April 19, 1956
' § 84 Act Done or Caused to Be Done.
'A state has judicial jurisdiction over an individual who has done, or caused to be done, as act which either took place in the state or resulted in consequences in the state for the purposes of any cause of action arising out of the act within limitations of reasonableness appropriate to the relationship derived from the act.
'1. A, who is domiciled in state X, injures B while driving his automobile in state Y. If a Y statute so provides at the time of the injury, Y can exercise judicial jurisdiction over A and entertain in its courts B's action against him.
'f. Operation of motor vehicles. * * * Every state provides by statute for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in certain circumstances over a nonresident motorist * * * Such a statute may be constitutionally applied if it is in effect when the vehicle is operated within the State * * *'
XII. Changes within Substituted Service Statutes which are Procedural
Zavis v. Warren, D.C.E.D.Wis.1940, 35 F.Supp. 689, 691:
The Wisconsin nonresident motorist act was changed after the accident to transfer the former duties as to such motorists to the newly-created office of Commissioner of Motor Vehicle Department. The court upheld service under the statute as amended saying:
'The nonresident defendant did not have any substantive right requiring process to be served upon the Secretary of State rather than upon the Commissioner of the Motor Vehicle Department. In either event he would receive exactly the same notice of the commencement of the action. The designation of the State official was a matter of procedure which was within the power of the Legislature. The plaintiff herein followed that procedure which was provided by the law which was in force at the time that this action was commenced. The defendant was in no way prejudiced * * *'
See also Duggan v. Ogden, 278 Mass. 432, 180 N.E. 301, 82 A.L.R. 765; Green v. Brinegar, 1940, 228 Iowa 477, 292 N.W. 229.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.