Des Moines Navigation & Railroad Company v. Iowa Homestead Company

Supreme Court of the United States · 1887 · Civil Procedure

123 U.S. 552 (1887)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureJurisdictionRemovalRes Judicatafederal jurisdictionprejudice or local influenceprior adjudicationvoid vs voidable

Facts

This suit sought recovery of the same taxes that had been involved in earlier litigation between the same parties. The railroad pleaded the prior federal decree in its favor as a bar, and the Homestead Company replied that the decree was null and void because the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in the earlier removed suit. In that earlier suit, although the Homestead Company and the railroad were both Iowa corporations, several other defendants were citizens of New York, removal was effected under the 1867 act, and after removal all defendants, including the railroad, appeared, answered, and defended while the Homestead Company contested the case on the merits without objecting to jurisdiction. The Iowa Supreme Court declined to determine the prior-adjudication issue on the ground that it had not been properly presented in briefing.

Issue

Whether the prior federal adjudication between the Homestead Company and the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company was absolutely void for want of jurisdiction, so that it could not bar this later action. Also, whether the state court could avoid deciding that federal question when it was fairly presented by the pleadings, proof, and assignment of errors.

Rule

When a federal circuit court takes a removed case, all parties are before the court, and no party objects to jurisdiction, any error in retaining the whole suit or adjudicating a controversy between citizens of the same state makes the decree at most erroneous, not void. A federal court has jurisdiction to determine whether a suit is removable in whole, in part, or not at all, and its decree, once rendered and not judicially annulled, vacated, reversed, or set aside, is binding on the parties and their privies and may be pleaded as a bar.

🔒

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.

In a land-title suit filed in Phoenix, an Arizona plaintiff sued eight defendants, including two Nevada citizens and one Arizona corporation. The Nevada defendants removed under a federal statute permitting removal based on local prejudice, and after removal every party appeared, answered, and litigated through final federal judgment without anyone objecting to subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Arizona plaintiff later sues the Arizona corporation in Arizona state court on the same claim and argues that the prior federal judgment was a nullity because both were Arizona citizens. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when a federal court takes a removed case, all parties are before it, and no one objects to jurisdiction, an error in retaining the whole suit or adjudicating a controversy between citizens of the same state makes the decree at most erroneous, not void. Because the federal court had authority to decide whether the suit was removable in whole, in part, or not at all, its unreversed decree remains binding and may bar a later action between the same parties.