Definition
A common-law phrase describing a person or entity physically or constructively located beyond the territorial boundaries of a particular state. The phrase carried two related but distinct applications:
1. Tolling of statutes of limitations. When a defendant was "out of the state" during the period when a cause of action accrued, many jurisdictions suspended (tolled) the running of the limitations period for as long as the defendant remained absent. The rationale was that a plaintiff could not sue someone beyond the court's practical reach.
2. Jurisdictional and common-law contexts. In matters arising under the common law — particularly those touching rights, liabilities, and the reach of a court's authority — "out of the state" was treated as equivalent to the older phrase "beyond sea," which described persons outside the realm in English practice.
In modern usage, "out of the state" as a formal legal term of art has largely been absorbed into statutes governing long-arm jurisdiction, tolling provisions, and service of process on nonresidents and foreign corporations. The phrase itself still appears in older statutes and case law and must be read in its historical context.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Not independently defined; understood as a plain-English prepositional phrase meaning "outside the borders of a given state."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not independently defined; treated as a self-evident geographic description.
The gap matters here. In ordinary speech, "out of the state" is purely geographic — a person who has left the state. In law, the phrase historically carried a functional meaning that extended beyond geography: a foreign corporation could be "out of the state" for legal purposes even if it conducted business within the state's borders, and the phrase triggered specific procedural consequences (tolling, substituted service) that bare geography alone did not.
Common Confusion
"Out of the state" is frequently read interchangeably with "out of the jurisdiction," but the two are not synonymous. Jurisdiction is a legal concept that can exist over persons physically absent; being "out of the state" in the historical sense described the practical unavailability of a defendant for service and suit, which is a narrower and more fact-specific inquiry. Researchers should also avoid conflating the tolling consequence of being "out of the state" with a defendant's deliberate evasion of service — some statutes required the absence to be continuous and uninterrupted, while others tolled on any departure.
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase is a research trap. When you encounter "out of the state" in pre-twentieth-century cases or statutes, it almost never means simply that someone crossed a state line. It is a term of art pointing directly to the "beyond sea" doctrine — a body of English common law governing limitations periods that American courts inherited and adapted. Failing to recognize this equivalence will send you to the wrong sources.
Several specific navigational points:
First, tolling statutes. Many nineteenth-century state statutes tolled limitations periods while a defendant remained "out of the state." Courts interpreting those statutes split on whether absence must be continuous, whether a defendant who was amenable to substituted service counted as "out of the state," and whether a foreign corporation with an in-state agent was ever "out of the state." These splits are jurisdiction-specific and often unresolved in the secondary literature.
Second, the foreign corporation question. Black's 2nd edition explicitly notes that a foreign corporation can be constructively "out of the state." This constructive absence doctrine was significant before the expansion of long-arm statutes; it determined whether a plaintiff could toll the limitations clock against a corporate defendant that had no registered agent in the forum.
Third, the transition to modern doctrine. As states enacted long-arm statutes and personal jurisdiction doctrine developed through the twentieth century, many courts and legislatures reconsidered whether "out of the state" tolling provisions remained necessary or constitutional. Some courts held that if a defendant was reachable by long-arm service, they were not truly "beyond the reach of the court" and tolling should not apply. This doctrinal shift means that a case decided before a jurisdiction adopted a long-arm statute may read the phrase very differently than a case decided after.
Fourth, cross-referencing. Whenever you encounter "out of the state" in a historical source, immediately check the jurisdiction's treatment of "beyond sea" — the two concepts are legally continuous, and the English and colonial authorities on "beyond sea" are the interpretive foundation.
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries are in agreement: "out of the state" means "beyond sea" in legal contemplation. Black's 1st edition and Bouvier's each give no independent definition, simply cross-referencing "beyond sea." Burrill follows the same approach, noting the phrase is "held to mean" beyond sea. Black's 2nd edition is the most developed, adding the important gloss that in non-common-law contexts the phrase can mean physically or constructively beyond territorial limits — and explicitly flagging the foreign corporation application.
What the historical dictionaries miss is the interpretive friction that developed as American courts applied the phrase to circumstances the English "beyond sea" doctrine never contemplated: a highly mobile population, the rise of the business corporation as a defendant, and eventually the long-arm statute. The dictionary entries treat the equivalence to "beyond sea" as settled, but the case law shows it was anything but.
Jurisdictional Note
The effect of being "out of the state" on limitations periods was never uniform. Some states construed absence narrowly, requiring physical departure; others applied the doctrine to any defendant who could not be personally served within the state. Researchers working across jurisdictions should check each state's tolling statute and accompanying case law independently rather than assuming uniformity.