Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Adam v. Saenger

Supreme Court of the United States · 1938 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFull Faith and CreditPersonal JurisdictionFull Faith and Credit Clausesister-state judgmentsjurisdiction to render judgmentcross-complaintservice on attorney

Facts

A Texas corporation sued Montes in a California superior court for money allegedly owed for goods sold and delivered. Montes, with leave of that court and following alleged California practice, filed a cross-complaint against the corporation for conversion and served the cross-complaint on the corporation's attorney of record in the pending suit. A default judgment was entered on the cross-action, the corporation's original suit was dismissed, and that California judgment was later assigned to petitioner. Petitioner then sued the corporation's directors and stockholders in Texas to collect the California judgment, but the Texas courts treated the California judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue

Whether Texas denied full faith and credit to the California judgment by refusing to recognize it on the ground that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the corporation in the cross-action. More specifically, whether California law authorized service of the cross-complaint on the plaintiff corporation's attorney of record and whether such a procedure satisfies due process.

Rule

A duly attested judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in one state is entitled in every other state to the same faith and credit it has by law or usage in the rendering state. Although the rendering court's jurisdiction may be examined in a later suit on the judgment, if the rendering state's law authorized service of a cross-complaint on the attorney of record of a plaintiff already before the court, due process does not forbid an in personam judgment in that cross-action because the plaintiff, by voluntarily invoking the court's jurisdiction, may be treated as present for purposes justice to the defendant requires.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ridgeway Supply, an Arizona corporation, filed a contract suit against Elena Torres in Nevada state court, a court of general jurisdiction. Torres later obtained a default judgment on a cross-complaint, and when she sued on that judgment in New Mexico, Ridgeway argued the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over it.

How should the New Mexico court treat the Nevada judgment at the outset?

Explanation. A duly attested judgment of a sister state from a court of general jurisdiction is presumed valid as to jurisdiction unless disproved by extrinsic evidence or by the record itself. The enforcing state may inquire into jurisdiction, but it does not begin from a position of no jurisdiction. Full faith and credit requires giving the judgment the same effect it has in the rendering state.