Orders affirmed. 6. Hartman v. Collum, 126 N.J. Eq. 629, distinguished. On defendant's appeal from an order advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, whose opinion is reported in 136 N.J. Eq. 246.
1935 Colo. Stat. Ann., Rule 4 (f) and 4 (g). (2) The judgment of the Probate Court of Routt County, Colorado, and against Charles H. Parker, is not entitled to full faith and credit in Missouri, for the reason that said judgment is a judgment in personam, entered against a non-resident of Colorado, and outside the territorial limits of the Colorado court, who did not appear, and who was not served personally with process within the territorial limits of the Colorado court that entered the judgment. 136 A.L.R. 621 et seq.; Royalty v. Florida Natl. Bank, 127 Fla. 618, 133 So. 689; Durfee v. Abbott, 50 Mich. 278, 15 N.W. 454; Sellars v. Sellars, 196 Minn. 143, 264 N.W. 425; Hartman v. Collum, 126 N.J. Eq. 629, 11 A. 67; Scharmann v. Schoell, 23 A.D. 397, 48 N.Y.S. 306; Sauvage v. Sauvage, 235 A.D. 460, 257 N.Y.S. 325; Faughnan v. Bashlor, 163 Ga. 525, 136 S.E. 545; Devlin v. Roussel, 36 A.D. 87, 55 N.Y.S. 386; Pennoyer v. Neff, 97 U.S. 714. [19] CONKLING, J.
But meanwhile, the injunction against him is justified so that no innocent purchaser for value shall enter the situation. Hartman v. Collum, 126 N.J. Eq. 629, reversing 125 N.J. Eq. 325, cited by defendant, is not controlling. It was a suit against the administrator of a New York decedent's estate, about a mortgage and the bond as well, which were part of the estate, and all the parties to the suit were non-residents of New Jersey. The motion will be denied.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibits a state court from fastening personal liability upon a non-resident who has not been personally served with process within the territorial limits of the state. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714; Smith v. Colloty, 69 N.J.L. 365; Redzina v. Provident Institution, 96 N.J. Eq. 346; Hartman v. Collum, 126 Id. 629. The Supreme Court in the instant case relied on Kawko v. Howe Co., 129 N.J.L. 319. The Supreme Court there held that the statutory method of service in the case of a non-resident individual who employs labor in this state as provided in N.J.S.A. 34:15-55.1 supra was not in violation of the due process clauses of the United States Constitution. That decision however clearly applied only to a non-resident who employed labor in this state and has no application in the case of a resident employer who later moves from the state after the employer-employee status has been concluded as in the instant case.
In determining whether an action is quasi in rem, the particular facts present in each case must be considered in attempting an ascertainment of the situs of the res. The cases of Hartman v. Collum, 126 N.J. Eq. 629, 11 A.2d 67; Buchman v. Smith, 136 N.J. Eq. 246, 41 A.2d 262; affirmed, 137 N.J. Eq. 215, 44 A.2d 179; Englander v. Jacoby, 132 N.J. Eq. 336, 28 A.2d 292; Cameron v. PennMutual Life Ins. Co., 111 N.J. Eq. 24, 161 A. 55, and 116 N.J. Eq. 311, 173 A. 344; Warren v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 116 N.J. Eq. 315, 173 A. 128; Amparo Mining Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 74 N.J. Eq. 197, 71 A. 605; affirmed, 75 N.J. Eq. 555, 73 A. 249; Kempson v. Kempson, 63 N.J. Eq. 783, 52 A. 625; Redzina v. Provident Institution, etc., 96 N.J. Eq. 346, 125 A. 133, all turned upon the question of whether there was a tangible thing within the State or whether, where the controversy concerned a status, jurisdiction was had over both parties. In Redzina v. Provident Institution, etc., supra, the Court said, at p. 352: