part nor bound by a judgment against the latter. 10 A tenant whose lease was prior to the suit is not in privity with the landlord.11 The principal is not bound by a judgment against his surety. 12 An express 13 or implied 14 warrantor is bound by the judgment in a suit against his warrantee if he has notice of the suit and an opportunity to defend it.

§ 186t. Res adjudicata against party in different capacities. A decree does not bind a party in another capacity from that in which he was sued. Thus, a judgment against a trust company, sued individually, is no estoppel against a suit by it as trustee.1 A decree against the trustee of a mortgage does not affect the same person when claiming as trustee of another mortgage without proof that the bondholders are the same.2

In order that he may be estopped in his representative capacity, it is not essential that a party be so described in the title, if it appears in the body of the bill. A party is not estopped by a judgment against him so far as concerns an interest of a stranger to the suit which he has subsequently bought.4

§ 186u. Res adjudicata against beneficiaries of a trust. Ordinarily, the beneficiary of a trust is bound by a judgment against his trustee 1 or the latter's predecessor.2 Subscribers to

10 Kapiolani Estate v. Atcherley, 238 U. S. 119.

11 See Iroquois Iron Co. v. Kruse, C. C. A., 241 Fed. 433; Doctor Jack Pot Mining Co. v. Marsh, 262 Fed. 261. The Illinois Dram Shop Act, Ill. R. S. ch. 43, § 10, which makes a judgment in proceedings against the tenant binding upon the landlord, is valid. Eiger v. Garrity, 246 U. S. 97.

12 U. S. v. California Bridge Co., 245 U. S. 337.

18 Wolfe v. Barataria Land Co., C. C. A., 255 Fed. 503.

14 Strathleven Steamship Co., Limited, v. Baulch, C. C. A., 244 Fed. 412; Cuneo Importing Co. v. Ameri can Importing & T. Co., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 413. See George A. Fuller Com pany v. Otis Elevator Company, 245 U. S. 489. The estoppel can be used by a purchaser of the subject

v.

matter pending the suit and before adjudication. Carroll Goldschmidt, C. C. A., 83 Fed. 508, 27 C. C. A. 566; Confectioners' Mach. & Mfg. Co. v. Racine Eng. & Mach. Co., 163 Fed. 914, 919. But see Ingersoll v. Jewitt, 16 Blatchf. 378, Fed. Cas. No. 7039.

§186t. 1 Bancroft V. Wicomico County Com'rs, 121 Fed. 874.

2 Compton v. Jesup, C. C. A., 68 Fed. 47. Cf. Carey v. Roosevelt, C. C. A., 102 Fed. 569.

3 See Manigault v. Holmes, 1 Bailey Eq. (S. C.) 283.

4 Re Clark Realty Co., C. C. A., 253 Fed. 938.

§ 186u. 1 Kent v. Lake Superior S. C. Co., 144 U. S. 75, 36 L. ed. 352; Rejall v. Greenhood, 92 Fed. 945. For the exceptions, see Goff v. Kelly, 74 Fed. 327; Handlan v. bonds who have repudiated their subscriptions are not parties to a suit by or against the trustee. A judgment against a guardian ad litem binds his ward.4

An ancillary administrator in one State is not in privity with an ancillary administrator in another, and a judgment against the one is not a bar to a suit by the other. The same rule applies between executors of a will and administrators with the will annexed appointed in another jurisdiction. A judgment upon the merits against a widow, in an action for the benefit of herself and children, is not a bar to a second suit, brought by her as administratrix, for the same cause of action under the Employers' Liability Act when the recovery would be for the benefit of the same persons and the defendant is the same. A judgment against the husband concerning the title to property claimed to be held in community was held to estop him and his wife in a subsequent suit.9

§ 186v. Res adjudicata against mortgagees. A mortgages is bound by judgments against the mortgagor entered before the mortgage or in suits pending when the mortgage was made,1

Walker, C. C. A., 200 Fed. 566, in bankruptcy. Raphael v. Wasatch & J. V. R. Co., C. C. A., 201 Fed. 854; Linton v. Omaha Wholesale Produce Market House Co., C. C. A., 218 Fed. 331; Schnepfe v. Schnepfe, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 781; In re Franklin Brewing Co., 254 Fed. 910.

U. S. 82, 28 Sup. Ct. 702, 52 L. ed. 966; Wilson v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., C. C. A., 164 Fed. 817. A Federal court followed a California statute and the construction of the same by the State courts, so far as to hold that a foreclosure decree of a State court against an administrator of the mortgagor was bind. ing upon the latter's heirs, without determining whether, if the foreclosure had been instituted in the Federal court, the heirs would have been necessary parties. Cf. Norton v. House of Mercy, С. С. А., 101 Fed. 382; Hearfield v. Bridges, C. C. A., 75 Fed. 47.

but not by judgments in subsequent suits to which he was not a party. The holders of mortgage bonds, previously issued, are not bound by a judgment against the mortgagor concerning the liability of its property to taxation; 8 nor concerning the validity or duration of a franchise covered by the mortgage. A decree against a trustee binds his successors.5

1

§ 186w. Res adjudicata against corporations, directors and stockholders. A corporation is not estopped by a decree in a suit to which one of its stockholders was a party. Otherwise, however, when the corporation was formed by the same persons, who defended the former suit, for the purpose of escaping from the effect of the adjudication.2

A judgment in a patent suit adjudicating no infringement by a manufacturing corporation was held to be available as res adjudicata in its favor by another company which it owned and controlled and acted as its selling agent. The officers of a corporation are estopped by a decree against their company, when they assisted it in the acts therein enjoined and exclusively managed and controlled the same. Where a corporation was sued for the torts of its servants it was held that a judgment in favor of the servants was a bar to an action against it.5 A judgment against the corporation estops in his individual capacity an officer who has had control of the defense. A judg

Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301, 314, 38 L. ed. 450, 456.

2 Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243, 42 L. ed. 733; Keokuk & Western R. Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301, 314, 38 L. ed. 450, 456; Campbell v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575; Southern B. & Tr. Co. v. Folsom, С. С. А., 75 Fed, 929; Columbia Ave. Sav. Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co. v. Dawson, 130 Fed. 152; Black v. Manhattan Trust Co., 213 Fed. 693.

V.

3 Wicomico County Com'rs Bancroft, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 977; Laighton v. City of Carthage, Mo., 175 Fed. 145; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100.

5 Lewis v. Holmes, C. C. A., 224 Fed. 411.

§ 186w. 1 Am. Coat Pad Co. v. Phœnix Pad Co., C. C. A., 113 Fed. 629, 632. Nor by a decree against a president and director of the same in his individual capacity. Brinckerhoff v. Holland Tr. Co., 159 Fed. 191.

2 Sce McCabe & Steam Constr. Co. v. Wilson, 209 U. S. 275, 52 L. ed. 788.

3 Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co., 244 U. S. 294.

ment against the corporation which was not obtained by fraud, establishes the company's indebtedness to the plaintiff in a suit to enforce a director's liability." Stockholders, present or former, who are not parties to statutory proceedings for the dissolution of a corporation, are so far bound by a decree therein making assessments upon the stock, that they cannot dispute the insolvency of the company nor the amount and the necessity of the assessment, nor whether it was correctly imposed upon former stockholders; o but they may defend upon the ground that their shares were fully paid, or as to any other question peculiarly affecting their individual liability. 10 Former stockholders are also, it has been said, concluded by a judgment finding that there were claims unpaid existing at the time of their transfer.11 Where the stockholders were parties to such a suit or proceeding and were duly served, they are bound by all questions therein determined, 12 and a judgment upon the merits in their favor is a bar to subsequent proceedings in another jurisdiction for the same relief. 13 Stockholders are not bound by a judgment against their corporation in a suit which was brought after the proceedings to liquidate its assets had begun.14 It has been held that a judgment establishing the exemption of a bank from taxation of its property and from liability to pay a tax upon its stockholders, is not an estoppel against the enforcement of a tax directly against the latter. 15

Transo Paper Co., C. C. A., 221 Fed. 79.

§ 186x. Effect as adjudications of proceedings against public
corporations and public officers. A State is not bound by a
judgment against one of its officers for the possession of lands,
which he claims to hold in its behalf.1 A homesteader is not
bound by a decree against the United States in a suit brought by
the Government to cancel a land patent to a railway company.2
A judgment against a municipal officer binds his successor in
office, the municipality, and the other officers, so far as their
official obligations are concerned, and also the citizens and tax-
payers. The same effect is given to an order for a mandamus,5
or for a writ of prohibition. A municipal corporation is not
necessarily bound by a decree in a suit against another munici-
pality, to which officers of the State were parties. An injune-
tion in a taxpayer's suit, which restrains a municipal corporation
from paying bonds, does not estop a bondholder, who is not a
party to the suit.8

4

§ 186y. Res adjudicata against persons not parties nor
privies. A person who succeeded to the defendant's rights,
previous to the institution of the suit, is not bound by and
cannot claim the benefit of the decree therein.1

Persons not parties nor their privies have been held to be
bound by and to have the benefit of decrees as estoppels when

202, 205, 212. See Union & Plant-
ers' Bk. v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71,
47 L. ed. 712.

§186x. 1 Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.
S. 204, 42 L. ed. 137. See supra,
§ 105.

2 Brandon v. Ard, 211 U. S. 11,
53 L. ed. 68.

3 New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank,
167 U. S. 371, 389, 42 L. ed. 202,
208; Scotland County v. Hill, 112
U. S. 183, 28 L. ed. 692. Harshman
v. Knox Co., 122 U. S. 306, 30 L.
ed. 1152; State v. Rainey, 74 Mo.
229; Harmon v. Auditor, 123 Ill.
122, 5 Am. St. Rep. 502.

101 Fed. 665; McEvoy v. New York,
56 App. Div. 222. See supra, § 186j;
infra, §§ 457, 459.

6 Bank of Ky. v. Stone, C. С. А.,
88 Fed. 383, 395, 398. See infra,
§ 450.

7 Bank of Kentucky v. Kentucky,
207 U. S. 258, 52 L. ed. 197.

8 Clagett v. Duluth Tp., C. С. А.,
143 Fed. 824.

§ 186y. 1 Calculagraph Co. v. Au-
tomatic Time Stamp Co., 154 Fed.
166.