Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/907

871 HARVARD LAW REVIEW VOL. XXXII JUNE, 1919 NO. 8 JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENTS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN A STATE A PERSONAL judgment against a defendant over whom the court rendering it has no jurisdiction is invalid. It is not merely reversible on writ of error or appeal, but is wholly void for all purposes.^ An attempt to execute it is without justification; a sheriff levying upon property of the defendant is liable for conver- sion,^ and a purchaser of the property on execution sale gets no title to it.^ A court of equity may, where the remedy at law is inadequate, enjoin the execution of the judgment.^ No action Hes upon it either in the state wherein it is rendered ^ or in any other state.^ It cannot be set up as a bar in a suit upon the original cause of action.^ If these fundamental principles of the conflict of laws are dis- regarded by a state court, they may be vindicated in the federal courts, for they are protected by two provisions of the federal Constitution. If a judgment is rendered in one state and an action is brought thereon in another state, a federal question is involved 1 Pennoyer v. Ne£f, 95 U. S. 714 (1877); Needham v. Thayer, 147 Mass. 536 (1888). 2 See Elliott v. Peirsol, i Pet. (U. S.) 328, 340 (1828). 3 McKinney v. Collins, 88 N. Y. 218 (1882). ' Needham v. Thayer, 147 Mass. 536, 18 N. E. 429 (1888). 155 (1870); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1877); Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N. E. 6 (1891); McEwan v. Zimmer, 38 Mich. 765 (1878); Whittier v. Wendell, 7 N. H. 257 (1834); Price v. Schaeffer, 161 Pa. 530, 29 Atl. 279 (1894). ' McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90 (1917).
 * Riverside, etc. Mills v. Menefee, 237 U. S. 189 (1915).
 * Buchanan v. Rucker, 9 East, 191 (1808); Schibsby v. Westenholz, L. R. 6 Q. B.