American Surety Co. v. Baldwin
287 U.S. 156 (1932)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (1932)

American Surety Co. v. Baldwin

No. 3

Argued October 13, 14, 1932

Decided November 14, 1932*

287 U.S. 156

Syllabus

1. Where a claim of violation of federal right, based on the alleged action of the trial court in entering judgment without notice and an opportunity to be heard, was raised for the first time upon petition for rehearing (denied without opinion) in the state supreme court, although the same ground of objection had been raised throughout the proceedings, but solely as a question of state law, a writ of certiorari to review the judgment will be dismissed for failure to make seasonably the federal claim. P. 287 U. S. 162.

2. Where, upon the claim of a party that judgment was entered against him without jurisdiction in a state court, there is an adequate state remedy available, which he invokes and pursues to final judgment, the remedy by suit in the federal court is barred. P. 287 U. S. 164.

3. Where a judgment is attacked as having been entered without jurisdiction, an appeal from an order on motion to vacate, made on a general appearance, was effective to confer jurisdiction upon the state supreme court to determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction. P. 287 U. S. 165.

4. The full faith and credit clause applies to judicial proceedings of a state court drawn in question in an independent proceeding in the federal courts. P. 287 U. S. 166.

5. Principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to other issues. P. 287 U. S. 166.

6. Principles of res judicata may apply though proceeding was begun by motion. P. 287 U. S. 166.

7. Decision of state supreme court wherein question of jurisdiction of trial court to enter judgment was adjudicated on appeal in a proceeding begun by motion to set the judgment aside held bar to proceeding in federal court to enjoin enforcement of judgment for want of jurisdiction. Pp. 287 U. S. 166-167.

8. While due process requires that one against whom liability on a supersedeas bond is sought to be enforced shall have opportunity to present every available defense, this need not be before entry of judgment, and a state may constitutionally provide for such a hearing by an appeal after entry of judgment. P. 287 U. S. 168.

Page 287 U. S. 157

9. Where opportunity to raise issue of lack of notice in state courts was lost through failure seasonably to pursue appropriate state remedy, same issue cannot be utilized as basis for relief in federal court. P. 287 U. S. 169.

50 Idaho 606, certiorari dismissed.

55 F.2d 555 reversed.

Writs of certiorari, 286 U.S. 536537, to review judgments of the Supreme Court of Idaho and the Circuit Court of Appeals, involving the validity of a judgment against the surety company on a supersedeas bond. For opinion of federal district court, affirmed here, see 51 F.2d 596.

Page 287 U. S. 158

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.