CHICAGO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.
v.
CHERRY

U.S. | 1917-05-07
No. 171
244 U.S. 25 Supreme Court of the United States (1917) Caution
Also reported at: 61 L. Ed. 966 · 37 S. Ct. 492 · SCDB 1916-050 · 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1602
Cited by 98 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Chicago Life Insurance Company challenged an Illinois judgment enforcing a Tennessee judgment against it, arguing it never received valid service in Tennessee and that enforcing the judgment violated due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois judgment, holding that when a defendant raises and litigates the jurisdictional question in the original proceedings before a higher court, it is bound by that court's decision on jurisdiction, and a state court's determination on such matters does not violate due process even if erroneous, provided the mistake is not so gross as to be impossible in a rational administration of justice.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in Illinois upon a judgment recovered in Tennessee against the insurance companies, plaintiffs in error. They pleaded and set up at the trial that there never was a valid service upon them in Tennessee and that the judgment was void.. The defendant in error (the plaintiff) showed in reply, without dispute, that the defence was urged in Tennessee by pleas in abatement, that, upon demurrer to one plea and upon issue joined on the other, the decision was for the plaintiff, and that the judgment was affirmed by the higher courts. The plaintiff had judgment at the trial in Illinois, the judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court and a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of that State. The insurance companies say that the present judgment deprives them of their property without due process of law. Other sections of the Constitution are referred to in the assignments of error but they have no bearing upon the case.

The ground upon which the present judgment was sustained by the Appellate Court was that as the issue of jurisdiction over the parties was raised and adjudicated after full hearing in the former case it could not be reopened in this suit. The matter was thought to stand differently from a tacit assumption or mere declaration in the record that the court had jurisdiction.

A court that renders judgment against a defendant thereby tacitly asserts, if it does not do so expressly, that it has jurisdiction oyer that defendant. But it must be taken to be established that .a court cannot conclude all persons interested by its mere assertion of its own power, Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, even where its power depends upon a fact and it finds the fact. Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 51. A divorce might be held void for want of jurisdiction although the libellee had appeared in the cause. Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 16, 17, 38. There is no doubt of the general proposition that in a suit upon a judgment the jurisdiction of the court rendering it over the person of the defendant may be inquired into. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S.

257. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 573. But when the power of the court in all other respects is established, what acts of the defendant shall be deemed a submission to its power is a matter upon which States may differ. If a statute should provide that filing a plea in abatement, or taking the question to a higher court should have that effect, it could not be said to deny due process of law. The defendant would be free to rely upon his defence by letting judgment go by default. York v. Texas, 137 U. S.

15. Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 235 U. S. 261, 272, 273. If without a statute a court should decide as we have supposed the statute to enact, it would infringe no rights under the Constitution pf the United States. That a party that has taken the question of jurisdiction to a higher court is bound by its decision was held in Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 517. It can be no otherwise when a court so decides as to proceedings in another State. It may be mistaken upon what to it is matter of fact, the law of the other State. But a mere mistake of that kind is not a denial of due process of law. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93, 96. Whenever a wrong judgment is entered against a defendant his property is taken when it should not have been, but whatever the ground may be, if the mistake is not so gross as to be impossible in a rational administration of justice, it is no more than the imperfection of man, not a denial of constitutional rights. The decision of the Illinois courts, right or wrong, was not such a denial. If the Tennessee judgment had been declared void in Illinois this court might have been called upon to decide whether it had been given due faith and credit. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S.

257. But a decision upholding it upon the ground taken in the present case does not require us to review the Tennessee decision or to go further than we have gone. An objection that a copy of the document sued upon should have been filed with the declaration is a matter of state procedure and not open here.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

  • Demarigny v. Demarigny, 43 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1949)
    …its adjudication. This applies also to jurisdictional questions. After a contest these cannot be relitigated as between the parties. Forsyth v. [City of] Hammond, 166 U.S. 506, 517, 17 S.Ct. 665, 670, 41 L.Ed. 1095; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25, 30, 37 S.Ct. 492, 493, 61 L.Ed. 966; Davis v. Davis, supra [305 U.S. 32, 59 S.Ct. 3, 83 L.Ed. 26, 118 A.L.R. 1518]. But those not parties to a litigation ought not to be foreclosed by the interested actions of others; especially not a State which i…
    1 / 2
  • Edmond Jordan Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
    …ines to consider the case. See Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931); see also Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948); Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25, 37 S.Ct. 492, 61 L.Ed. 966 (1917). 454 So. 2d at 87. See also Overly v. Overly, 66 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1953), where an out of state divorce decree obtained by the wife, which determined the issue of personal jurisdiction over the husband and a certifi…
  • Baron v. Baron, 454 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
    …ines to consider the case. See Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931); see also Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948); Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25, 37 S.Ct. 492, 61 L.Ed. 966 (1917). There is no indication in the record that the husband in this case ever attempted to appeal the New Hampshire court’s determination of jurisdiction through the appropriate channels. Thus, we hold that the trial c…

Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (21 total)

View all 21 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw