FABBOTT V. ALABAHA aOLD LIFE INS. 00. 393 �or not. It is clear to my mind that any service, however made, by the authority and power of a court of this state, under the laws of this state, executed in another state, cannot have any greater effect than that pertaining to what is gener- ally styled service by publication. As to the effeot within the state where the suit is pending of service by publication of notice or citation to a non-resident party, there appears to be a marked dififerenôe of opinion and judgment between the state courts of this state and the courts of the United States. I am not sure that an authoritative decision bas been made on this question by the supreme court of this state, but the language of the justices delivering the opinion of that court in Camphell v. Wilson, 6 Texas, 379, and in numerous subse- quent decisions down to and including WUson V. Zeiglar, ei Texas, 657, clearly indicates the judges of the supreme court of this state have been of opinion that service by publication of citation, under the statutes of this state, to a non-resident defendant, would authorize such a personal judgment against the defendant as could be enforced by execution against any property of the defendant found in this state. And it is believed that this opinion bas been very generally held and acted upon by the legal profession and by the courts of orig- inal jurisdietion in this state. This question came directly before the supreme court of the United States in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, (95 U. S. 714,) and the judgment of that court in that case, to use the language of Mr. Justice Hunt, as found in bis dissenting opinion, "is based upon the theory that the legislature had no power to pass the law in question ; that the principle of the statute is vicious, and every proceeding under it void. It (the judgment) therefore affects ail like cases, past and future, and in every state." I will not repeat, or attempt to add to, the reasoning of the opinion of the court as ftnnounced by Mr. Justice Field. That decision is conclusive of the question in this court, and on the authority of that case the proceedings by which service was attempted to be had on the defendant in this case are held to be void, and on the grounds above indicated. The motion to quash is sustained. KoTB. Bee Blair y. TurÛe, infra. ����
