303 U.S. 59 (1938)
The Beaumont Export & Import Company, a Texas corporation, brought suit in the Superior Court of California against Montes to recover a money judgment for goods sold and delivered.1 Montes, following what is alleged to be the California practice, brought a cross-action against the corporation by service of a cross-complaint upon the corporation’s attorney of record in the pending suit to recover for the conversion of chattels.2
Judgment in the cross-action, taken by default, was followed by dismissal of the corporation’s suit.3 A motion to open the default and to be allowed to defend, made later on behalf of the corporation, was contested and was denied by the court, the issue being whether the cross-complaint was in fact served on the plaintiff’s attorney.4
Petitioner Adam, as assignee of the California judgment against the corporation, brought the present suit in the Texas state district court against respondents, directors of the corporation acting as its trustees in dissolution, and against its stockholders as transferees of corporate assets, to collect the judgment.5 His petition sets out in detail the circumstances attending the rendition of the California judgment and incorporates by reference a duly attested copy of the judgment roll.6
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the complaint and gave judgment dismissing the cause, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.7 Petition to the Texas supreme court for a writ of error was denied for want of jurisdiction.8 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.9
Whether the action of the Texas state courts in dismissing a suit founded upon a judgment of the superior court of California denied to the judgment the faith and credit which the Constitution commands?10
By R.S. § 905, enacted under the full faith and credit clause, the duly attested record of the judgment of a state is entitled to such faith and credit in every court within the United States as it has by law or usage in the state from which it is taken.11 If the record appears on its face to be from a court of general jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the cause and the parties is presumed unless disproved by extrinsic evidence or the record itself.12 In a suit upon the judgment of another state the jurisdiction of the rendering court remains open to inquiry.13 When the matter of fact or law on which jurisdiction depends was not litigated in the original suit it must be adjudicated in the suit founded upon the judgment.14 Texas law requires the court, not the jury, to determine the legal effect of a foreign judgment.15 A suitor asserting that the force and effect differs from a similar Texas judgment must specifically allege and prove the particular foreign laws or usage relied upon.16
Yes. The Beaumont Export & Import Company, a Texas corporation, brought suit in the Superior Court of California against Montes to recover a money judgment for goods sold and delivered. Montes brought a cross-action against the corporation by service of a cross-complaint upon the corporation’s attorney of record in the pending suit to recover for the conversion of chattels.17 Judgment in the cross-action was taken by default.18 Petitioner Adam, as assignee of that California judgment, brought suit in Texas state district court against the respondents as trustees in dissolution and transferees of corporate assets to collect the judgment.19 He set out the circumstances and incorporated a duly attested copy of the judgment roll.20
The Texas trial court sustained a general demurrer and dismissed the cause.21 The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Texas supreme court denied a writ of error for want of jurisdiction.22 The Texas Court of Civil Appeals rested its decision solely on want of jurisdiction in the California cross-action.23 It construed the pleaded California statutes and decisions to conclude that service of the cross-complaint upon the plaintiff’s attorney of record was unauthorized.24 Under the pleaded California law, Section 442 of the California Code of Civil Procedure permits a cross-complaint to be served upon parties who have appeared in the action without requiring new summons.25 Section 1015 directs service of papers upon the attorney of a party who has appeared.26 California decisions such as Farrar v. Steenbergh confirm that service of a cross-complaint upon a plaintiff’s attorney is effective.27 The corporation’s voluntary commencement of the original suit submitted it to the jurisdiction of the California court for purposes of the cross-action.28 This rendered the default judgment valid under California law and entitled to full faith and credit in Texas.29
The Texas courts denied the California judgment the full faith and credit commanded by the Constitution when they refused to recognize the validity of service under California law and dismissed the enforcement action.30
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black concurred only in the result reached by the majority without authoring any separate opinion of his own.31