Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & trust Co.
Facts: A trust company in New York which had exclusive management and control of a common trust fund established by it under 100-c of the New York Banking Law petitioned under that section for a judicial settlement of accounts which would be binding and conclusive as to any matter set forth therein upon everyone having any interest in the common fund or in any participating trust. In this common fund the trust company had invested assets of numerous small trusts of which it was trustee and of which some of the beneficiaries were residents and some nonresidents of the State. The only notice of this petition given beneficiaries was by publication in a local newspaper pursuant to 100-c (12). Held: Issue: Was in constitutional to only notify by a newspaper add when the known whereabouts of the (D) can be aquired? Rules: Where the names and post-office addresses of those affected by a proceeding are at hand, the reasons disappear for resort to means less likely than the mails to apprise them of its pendency. When notice is a person's due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected, or, where conditions do not reasonably permit such notice, the form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than other of the feasible and customary substitutes.
Further: After the first investment the trust company made notice to each person they knew of that would benefit if the trust fund was would become distributable.
National Dev. CO. v. Triad Holding Corp. Facts: (D) Triad Holding Company. On Dec 22 the (D) maid was handed a complaint. He has ahouses all over the world and only stays in the is one for a month. The district court found that is was against Due Process because it was not a dwelling house Issue: Was the apartment considered a dwelling? Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) permits service upon an individual other than an infant or an incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). A person can have two or more "dwelling houses or usual places of abode," provided each contains sufficient indicia of permanence. Where a party has several residences which he permanently maintains, occupying one at one period of the year and another at another period, service is valid when made at the dwelling house in which the party is then living. Reasoning: Because he lives here on and off as well as doing things to the house to make it a dwelling, he can be served.