*1 founded, was upon action is validity notes, which Bank or former suit therein. Webster &c. in the issue 186, H.N. 189. Fuller, 85 v. H. King Chase, 15 N. 9. “There analogous v. case is This put lot of oats. for the conversion suit was mortgage was a which particular relied title. The title

plaintiff’s validity of This did make to be fraudulent. was found which was settled in issue. The matter mortgage the matter title to the oats —not did not have by was that that suit title essential, . . . but invalid. Title mortgage was that his 263, H. Dunklee, 77 N. 265. So Chesley not.” mortgage was consequently the former settled here, the matter portion bank plaintiff’s title to a of the defendant’s judgment was the plaintiff’s title to the notes in did settle account. have a cross in this action could filed validity. proceeding, it validity of setting the notes the former up the Lambert, N. H. 79. to do so. Thibault not bound order must Court was correct and the ruling of the Trial All concurred.

Rockingham, 3940 No. . Ap’t Ap’ee. & H. v. James a. Montville, Hamblin

Winifred *2 Massachusetts, Maybelle Murphy, of Sleeper II. Fellows William and plaintiff. for the Holland, Perkins and Everett P. for the defendants.

John W. correctly argue Johnston, C. The defendants that the issue of actually litigated proceeding in first legitimacy was the and that plaintiff precluded by is it. A of decree a Probate Court cannot collaterally. Goldthwaite, McInnes v. N. H. be attacked probate applies cases cited. This of and conclusiveness a decree Superior judgment sitting appellate Court as an court of probate. petition of of

It is true that cause the second purpose as that of the first. same the second is to disqualify George Hamblin, object the defendants as heirs of E. while the M. first was remove Nellie Hamblin as administratrix. legitimacy

But the the defendants which determines present petition actually the result of the in decided the earlier proceeding. The proceeding concedes his brief that that question of “involved the whether or not Hamp- under the law of New legal M. Hamblin George shire Nellie E. wife Hamblin.” adjudicated adjudication It was that she was. From this necessarily follows as a matter of law and of definition that marriage George E. Hamblin legitimate. and Nellie M. Hamblin are To hold otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. a judgment

“Where fact essential to actually is and determined a judgment, valid and final the deter- mination is parties subsequent conclusive between the in a action on . . .” different cause action. Restatement, Judgments, 293. This principle recognized Lovejoy same Ashworth, N. 94 H.

cases cited. purpose be vain and

It would consider what another might respecting legality hold of this legitimacy judg- of its because this court is bound already jurisdiction concerning entered ment these matters. suggests parties proceeding are prior proceeding. those in the Just what is from meant is different only persons “It is essential specified. between further judicata claimed to be effective should whom the rules Restatement, Judgments, actions.” the two 359. The ex- same cepting party parties does not establish action. The fact that in the first there are fewer adversaries parties is immaterial.

Duncan, dissented: others concurred. If J., dissenting: contentions, is correct in her

Duncan, Hampshire marriage of the decedent and Nellie Hamblin New to, they did, domiciled and intended re- were Vermont while (G. L., Vt., in that ss. there, was invalid state. main resident Wheelock, 417), to 3514; 103 Vt. and would seem follow Wheelock birth, the law of Vermont where status at defendants’ born, illegitimacy. The decedent was domiciled they death, right to Hampshire at and the defendants’ inherit is in New Hampshire according may law. to New determinable doubtless comity require to does enforce the be that well defendants, to our respect with the status since of Vermont law comparable of the uniform provisions those contain statutes Laws, Restatement, 121; Conflict of s. marriage act. But evasion cf. 138; Townsend, e; Harding s. 280 Mass. 256. See 132, comment s. A. L. R. 626. anno., 941; A. L. my judgment is entitled decision these

In majority opinion holds need not be considered. questions, which appeal Nellie Hamblin was was whether issue in the former Hampshire, the “widow” of the decedent in New virtue meaning L., 352, s. as to entitled ad- of R. c. so be within the question him relation to What was her minister his estate. appeal in this whether the defendants The issue presented. our of descent and decedent’s estate under law to share entitled place L., 360), if of their birth (R. c. under law distribution they legitimate Restatement, were not children the decedent. See Laws, Conflict of ss. to him is the 138, 304. What was their relation presented. any “question I do not understand that previously “litigated fact” disputed, and determined” is now right any way the issue involved defendants’ inherit was prior appeal. Although transcript pleadings proceedings former us, they are before do not indicate that the de- parties. fendants were they were, showing it should the burden my plead judicata. view, defendants who In plaintiff is pending exception entitled to petition, trial and her should be sustained. Coos, No. 3959.

Page City Seed Co. v. Hardware Store.

American Brush Co. v. Same. Rodley Co. v. Same.