Des Moines Navigation & Railroad v. Iowa Homestead Co.
8 S. Ct. 217, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2195, 123 U.S. 552 (1887)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judgment from a U.S. Circuit Court is not a nullity and cannot be collaterally attacked, even if the record affirmatively shows a lack of complete diversity jurisdiction. Such a judgment is merely erroneous and is binding upon the parties until reversed on direct appeal.
Facts:
- The Iowa Homestead Company, an Iowa corporation, previously sued the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, also an Iowa corporation, along with several citizens of New York, in an Iowa state court over a land dispute.
- The defendants who were citizens of New York removed the entire case to a federal Circuit Court, citing diversity of citizenship.
- Both the Iowa Homestead Company and the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company appeared and fully participated in the federal lawsuit.
- At no point during the federal proceedings, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, did the Iowa Homestead Company object to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, despite the clear presence of an Iowa plaintiff and an Iowa defendant.
- The U.S. Supreme Court decided the prior case on its merits, ruling in favor of the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company.
- Subsequently, the Iowa Homestead Company initiated a new lawsuit against the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company in an Iowa state court concerning the same subject matter.
Procedural Posture:
- The Iowa Homestead Company sued the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company in an Iowa state trial court.
- The Navigation and Railroad Company raised a prior federal court decree as a bar to the action, asserting the defense of former adjudication (res judicata).
- The Iowa trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Homestead Company.
- The Navigation and Railroad Company (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the trial court's judgment, declining to consider the federal defense on the procedural ground that it was not properly briefed by the appellant's counsel.
- The Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fact that the record of a prior federal case affirmatively shows a lack of complete diversity jurisdiction render the final judgment from that case void and subject to collateral attack in a subsequent state court proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Waite
No. A final judgment from a federal Circuit Court is not void, even if the record shows a lack of complete diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited, but not inferior, jurisdiction, and their judgments, while potentially erroneous, are not nullities. The Circuit Court had the power to determine its own jurisdiction, and its decision to proceed, even if incorrect, was a rightful exercise of that power. The proper remedy for an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction is a direct appeal on that specific issue. Since the Homestead Company fully litigated the prior case on the merits without raising a jurisdictional objection, the final decree from the U.S. Supreme Court is conclusive, binding, and cannot be collaterally attacked in a subsequent proceeding. The Iowa state court erred in failing to give full faith and credit to the prior federal decree.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between a judgment that is 'void' and one that is merely 'erroneous.' By holding that even an apparent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders a judgment erroneous but not void, the Court significantly strengthens the principle of finality in litigation. It prevents a party from participating in a lawsuit on the merits, waiting for an unfavorable outcome, and then trying to nullify the entire proceeding by raising a jurisdictional defect it had previously waived or ignored. This decision reinforces the authority of federal courts and limits the ability to challenge their judgments through collateral attacks in state courts, thereby promoting judicial economy and the stability of judgments.
