283 U.S. 522, 51 S. Ct. 517, 75 L. Ed. 1244 (1931)
The petitioner, Baldwin, brought suit against the respondent, the Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association, an Iowa corporation, initially in a Missouri state court.1 The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.2 The respondent appeared specially and moved to quash the service of process, asserting that it had never been present in Missouri and that the person served was not its agent.3
The Missouri District Court quashed the service but refused to dismiss.4 An alias summons was issued and returned served. The respondent again appeared specially, moved to set aside the service, quash the return, and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction over its person.5
After a hearing on affidavits and 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.6 The respondent did not move to set aside the judgment nor sue out a writ of error.7 The petitioner then instituted the present action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa upon the record of the Missouri judgment.8
The respondent defended on the ground that the Missouri court lacked jurisdiction over its person.9 After a hearing in which a jury was waived, the Iowa District Court sustained the defense and dismissed the action.10 The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. A writ of certiorari was granted to review the affirmance.11
Whether the judgment rendered by the Missouri District Court after the respondent’s special appearance and motion contesting personal jurisdiction is res judicata on the question of that court’s jurisdiction over the respondent?12
A judgment rendered after a party voluntarily appears, contests jurisdiction over its person through a special appearance and motion, receives a full hearing on affidavits and briefs, and suffers an adverse ruling is res judicata as to that jurisdictional issue; the party may not relitigate the question in a subsequent action absent fraud.13
Yes. The respondent Iowa corporation appeared specially in the Missouri District Court, moved to quash service and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and after a hearing on affidavits and briefs had its motion overruled with leave to plead.14
It then allowed judgment to be entered without further challenge by motion or writ of error, thereby submitting the jurisdictional question to that tribunal and receiving a final determination.15
Public policy requires that a party who has contested an issue and been fully heard be bound by the result. This precludes the collateral attack the respondent later mounted when the petitioner sued on the judgment in the Iowa District Court.16
The Missouri District Court judgment is res judicata on the question of personal jurisdiction, the defense was improperly sustained below, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed.17