Adam v. Saenger
303 U.S. 59 (1938)
- Adam sued Saenger in Texas for
something or other.
- Adam established that the
Texas court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
- Saenger countersued. Adam
appealed the counterclaim.
- Adam argued that he did not
consent to the counterclaim, therefore the Texas court did not have
jurisdiction to hear it.
- The US Supreme Court found for
Saenger and allowed the counterclaim to proceed.
- The US Supreme Court found
that if you consent to one part of the litigation, you've consented to
all of the litigation.
- Therefore, if you sue
someone, and it's determined that you've got the jurisdiction to sue
them, then they logically have the jurisdiction to sue you back.