Baldwin v. Ionwa State Traveling Men Ass, No. 445

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
PartiesBALDWIN v. IONWA STATE TRAVELING MEN'S ASS'N
Decision Date18 May 1931
Docket NumberNo. 445

283 U.S. 522
51 S.Ct. 517
75 L.Ed. 1244
BALDWIN

v.

IONWA STATE TRAVELING MEN'S ASS'N.

No. 445.
Argued April 22, 1931.
Decided May 18, 1931.

Messrs. Denton Dunn, C. W. Prince, and James Beery, all of Kansas City, Mo., and F. W. Lehmann, Jr., of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.

Mr. J. M. Parsons, of Des Moines, Iowa, for respondent.

Page 523

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A writ of certiorari was granted herein1 to review the affirmance by the Circuit Court of Appeals2 of a judgment for respondent rendered by the District Court for Southern Iowa. The action was upon the record of a judgment rendered in favor of the petitioner against the respondent in the United States District Court for Western Missouri.

The defense was lack of jurisdiction of the person of the respondent in the court which entered the judgment. After hearing, in which a jury was waived, this defense was sustained and the action dismissed. The first suit was begun in a Missouri state court and removed to the District Court. Respondent appeared specially and moved to quash and dismiss for want of service. The court quashed the service, but refused to dismiss. An alias summons was issued and returned served, whereupon it again appeared specially, moved to set aside the service, quash the return, and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction of its person. After a hearing on affidavits and

Page 524

briefs, the motion was overruled, with leave to plead within thirty days. No plea having been filed within that period, the cause proceeded, and judgment was entered for the amount claimed. Respondent did not move to set aside the judgment nor sue out a writ of error.

The ground of the motion made in the first suit is the same as that relied on as a defense to this one, namely, that the respondent is an Iowa corporation, that it never was present in Missouri, and that the person served with process in the latter state was not such an agent that service on him constituted a service on the corporation. The petitioner objected to proof of these matters, asserting that the defense constituted a colateral attack and a retrial of an issue settled in the first suit. The overruling of this objection and the resulting judgment for respondent are assigned as error.

The petitioner suggests that article 4, section 1, of the Constitution, forbade the retrial of the question determined on respondent's motion in the Missouri District Court; but the full faith and credit required by that clause is not involved, since neither of the courts concerned was a state court. Compare Cooper v. Newell, 173 U. S. 555, 567, 19 S. Ct. 506, 43 L Ed. 808; Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30, 33, 44 S. Ct. 432, 68 L. Ed. 885. The respondent, on the other hand, insists that to deprive it of the defense which it made in the court below, of lack of jurisdiction over it by the Missouri District Court, would be to deny the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; but there is involved in that doctrine no right to litigate the same question twice. Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U. S. 25, 37 S. Ct. 492, 61 L. Ed. 966; compare York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 S. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed. 604.

The substantial matter for determination is whether the judgment amounts to res judicata on the question of the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it over the person of the respondent. It is of no moment that the

Page 525

appearance was a special one expressly saving any submission to such jurisdiction. That fact would be important upn ap peal from the judgment, and would save the question of the propeiety of the court's decision on the matter, even though, after the motion had been overruled, the respondent had proceeded, subject to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
457 practice notes
  • Hoffman v. Blaski Sullivan v. Behimer, Nos. 25
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1960
    ...be thereafter concluded by the judgment of the tribunal to which he has submitted his cause.' Baldwin v. Iowa Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 525—526, 51 S.Ct. 517, 518, 75 L.Ed. 1244. One would suppose that these considerations would be Page 349 especially important in enforcing comit......
  • Bartel v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co., Case Nos.: 18-CV-537 JLS (JLB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 4, 2019
    ...other issue."1 Kendall v. Overseas Dev. Corp. , 700 F.2d 536, 538 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Mens's Ass'n , 283 U.S. 522, 525–26, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931) ). When a court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction, issue preclusion bars a plaintiff fr......
  • Schillerstorm v. Schillerstrom, No. 7060.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 7, 1948
    ...the 14th Amendment does not involve the right to litigate the same question twice. Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n, 1931, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244, reversing 8 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 357. See 30 Am.Jur. Judgments, § 172. In Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., supra, 3......
  • Moore v. Kemp, No. 84-8423
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1987
    ...of action is usually disregarded if that judgment has reached finality. Finality is that important. Baldwin v. Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 525, 51 S.Ct. 517, 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931) (in civil litigation court noted: "Public policy dictates that there be an end to litigation; that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
457 cases
  • Hoffman v. Blaski Sullivan v. Behimer, Nos. 25
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1960
    ...be thereafter concluded by the judgment of the tribunal to which he has submitted his cause.' Baldwin v. Iowa Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 525—526, 51 S.Ct. 517, 518, 75 L.Ed. 1244. One would suppose that these considerations would be Page 349 especially important in enforcing comit......
  • Bartel v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co., Case Nos.: 18-CV-537 JLS (JLB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 4, 2019
    ...other issue."1 Kendall v. Overseas Dev. Corp. , 700 F.2d 536, 538 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Mens's Ass'n , 283 U.S. 522, 525–26, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931) ). When a court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction, issue preclusion bars a plaintiff fr......
  • Schillerstorm v. Schillerstrom, No. 7060.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 7, 1948
    ...the 14th Amendment does not involve the right to litigate the same question twice. Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n, 1931, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244, reversing 8 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 357. See 30 Am.Jur. Judgments, § 172. In Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., supra, 3......
  • Moore v. Kemp, No. 84-8423
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1987
    ...of action is usually disregarded if that judgment has reached finality. Finality is that important. Baldwin v. Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 525, 51 S.Ct. 517, 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931) (in civil litigation court noted: "Public policy dictates that there be an end to litigation; that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT