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.