McDonald v. Mabee

243 U.S. 90 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1917

Facts

A plaintiff initiated a suit upon a promissory note in Texas against the defendant, Mabee. At the time the suit began, Mabee was domiciled in Texas but had left the state with the intent to establish a new home elsewhere, though his family remained in Texas. He later returned briefly before establishing domicile in Missouri. The only service of process upon Mabee was by publication in a newspaper for four successive weeks after his final departure from Texas, and he did not appear in the suit. The plaintiff subsequently recovered a judgment in Texas on this note, which purported to bind Mabee personally and foreclose a lien.

Procedural history

A plaintiff obtained a judgment in Texas against Mabee on a promissory note, with service by publication. In a subsequent suit, the defendant asserted this prior judgment as a defense. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the prior judgment was a good personal judgment, overruling the current plaintiff’s contention that giving it personal effect denied the constitutional right to due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this judgment.

Issue

Does service by publication in a newspaper on a defendant who has left the state with intent not to return, though technically still domiciled there, satisfy due process requirements for a valid personal judgment?

Holding

No, service by publication under these circumstances does not satisfy due process for a personal judgment. The prior personal judgment rendered against Mabee was void.

Rule

To obtain a valid personal judgment, due process requires a method of service that is "most likely to reach the defendant," especially when dispensing with personal service. Service by publication in a local newspaper is insufficient notice to bind a person who has left a state intending not to return, even if they are technically still domiciled there. A personal judgment for money, invalid for lack of service amounting to due process, is ineffective both in the state where rendered and elsewhere.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-08-25. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.