United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blankenhorn
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blankenhorn
Opinion of the Court
The appellant, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as insurance carrier for the Ford
We do not inquire into the grounds of such contention, for, having been duly submitted to the state courts, the question is thought to be res adjudieata. To hold otherwise would be to scuttle the whole doctrine of judicial estoppel. If it be appropriate to put forward authority for a proposition so elementary, Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Railroad Com., 251 U. S. 366, 40 S. Ct. 174, 64 L. Ed. 310; Id. (D. C.) 257 F. 197, may be cited as being directly in point. Cases like Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U. S. 117, 35 S. Ct. 255, 59 L. Ed. 492, where it is held that a judgment void on its face for want of jurisdiction of either the subject-matter or the person of the party aggrieved, are manifestly not in point, for admittedly both the District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. BLANKENHORN
- Status
- Published