Case Name: YOUNG REALTY CO. v. DARLING STORES CORPORATION
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1942-05-25
Citations: 128 F.2d 556
Docket Number: No. 232
Parties: YOUNG REALTY CO. v. DARLING STORES CORPORATION.
Judges: Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 128
Pages: 556–557

Head Matter:
YOUNG REALTY CO. v. DARLING STORES CORPORATION.
No. 232.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 25, 1942.
Szold & Brandwen, of New York City (Irvine J. Shubert and Aaron Levy, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Stanley M. Dorman, of New York City (Eugene Frederick Roth, of New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
This action is brought upon a judgment obtained in a federal district court in Iowa, which was affirmed in Darling Stores Corp. v. Young Realty Co., 8 Cir., 121 F.2d 112, certiorari denied October 13, 1942, 314 U.S. 658, 62 S.Ct. 111, 86 L.Ed. -. There the appellant raised precisely the issue of lack of jurisdiction that it has raised here, but the decision, as indicated, went against it. It asserts here, in effect, that that decision is open to collateral attack because the court drew wrong factual inferences from the findings of fact and incorrectly interpreted the Iowa statute as applied to those inferences. Such alleged errors could not have been successfully asserted in such a suit as this even in those days when judgments were more vulnerable than now. And surely, today, such an error cannot be asserted in the light of recent Supreme Court decisions which have markedly diminished'the peculiar sacredness of juris dictional issues and have accorded greater potency to a court's determination that it has jurisdiction. Baldwin v. Iowa Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244; Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104; Chicot Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 67, 60 S.Ct. 44, 84 L.Ed. 85; Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 60 S.Ct. 907, 84 L.Ed. 1263.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.