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.