BUSINESS JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENTS 873 whether or not the claim upon which the judgment is rendered arose within the state wherein the judgment is rendered.^^ It is immaterial whether or not the defendant has property in the state," although in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, judgment may be given against the property .^^ It is immaterial whether or not the defendant had notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard. ^^ It is indeed necessary to due process that steps should be taken calculated to give the defendant notice and an oppor- tunity to be heard; but something more than notice and an oppor- tunity to be heard is necessary. The judgment is valid only when the state has some power, some control over the defendant. The state has such control as to justify it in giving judgment in at least three cases: first, when the defendant is present within the state; second, when he has consented to the jurisdiction of the state; and third, when he is a citizen or resident of the state. If the state has control of the defendant at the time when action is ^ Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote, [1894] A. C. 670; Emanuel v. Symon, [1908] I K. B. 302 (C. A.). See Beale, "The Jurisdiction of Courts over Foreigners," 26 Harv. L. Rev. 283, 296. " Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1877); Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193 (1899); De Arman v. Massey, 151 Ala. 639, 44 So. 688 (1907); Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 273 (1868); Eastman v. Dearborn, 63 N. H. 364 (1877). A few early cases holding that jurisdiction over the defendant's property gives jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against him, have, since the decision in Pennoyer v. NefE, been discredited. De Arman v. Massey, supra; Laughlin v, Louisiana, etc. Co., 35 La. Ann. 1184 (1883); Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 277, 47 N. W. 967 (1891). 1" Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1877); Amdt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316 (1890); Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193 (1899); Clark v. WeUs, 203 U. S. 164 (1906); De Arman v. Massey, 151 Ala. 639, 44 So. 688 (1907); Cloyd v. Trotter, 118 111. 391, 9 N. E. 507 (1886); Beard v. Beard, 21 Ind. 321 (1863); Elmendorf v. Elmendorf, 58 N. J. Eq. 113, 44 Atl. 164 (1899); Schwinger v. Hickok, 53 N. Y. 280 (1873). But such service is insufficient imless it reasonably tends to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Roller v. HoUy, 176 U. S. 398 (1900); United States V. Fisher, 222 U. S. 204 (191 1). 1® Hence even actual ser ce upon a nonresident defendant outside the jurisdiction is insufficient. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476 (1878); Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41 (1892); Denny v. Ashley, 12 Colo. 165, 20 Pac. 331 (1888); Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N. E. 6 (1891); McEwan v. Zimmer, 38 Mich. 765 (1878); Scott v. Streepy, 73 Texas, 547, 11 S. W. 532 (1889). Similarly, service by publication upon a nonresident is insufficient. Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185 (1886); Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S. 394 (191 7); Cocke v. Brewer, 68 Miss. 775, 9 So. 823 (1891); Smith V. McCutchen, 38 Mo. 415 (1866); McKinney v. Collins, 88 N. Y. 216 (1882). Compare D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. (U. S.) 165 (1850) (service upon a co-debtor).
