Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/209

 202 rSDKBAL BEPOBTBB. �decided, the ]udgment operates as an estoppel as to ihat question in any subsequent suit between the same parties, whether the second suit be upon the same or upon some other cause of action. Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. 109 ; Campbell v. Cross, 39 Ind. 155-158 ; Bank of the U. S. v. Beverly, 1 How. 134-135 ; Davis v. Brown, 94 U. S. 423. So, when an issue is made in a case and decided, whether with or without trial, the judgment is conclusive between the same parties in any subsequent action for the same cause, and as to ail questions whioh were or might have been raised upon the first trial. Stockton V. Ford, 18 How. 418 ; Mallony v. Horan, 49 N. T. 111. But, where a suit is tried and determined between parties, the mere fact that in that suit a question might have been raised, tried, and determined, does not prevent the raising of such question in a suit upon a different cause of action. Cromwell v. The County ofSac, 94 U. S. 356 ; Davis v. Brown, Id. 423-428; Eussell V. Rau, Id. 602; Nims v. Vaughn, 40 Mich. 356-360 ; Jacobson v. Miller, 41 Mich. 90-92. While the pro- ceedings in the lowa case undoubtedly would operate as an estoppel as to ail questions raised or which might have been raised between the plaintiff and Jeremiah Folsom, and while, if an issue had been raised in that action between Frank Folsom and Eliza, the plaintijBf here would have been estopped to question the judgmentsOf the court upon that issue, it seems to me clear that the plaintiff was not bound to raise an issue with his co-plaintiff in that case; and it seems to me very questionable whether the court would or ought to have per- mitted it to be done. The case had been fuUy heard, argued, and submitted, and was then simply held under advisement by the court. It is impossible to say that with a case in this situation the plaintiff was entitled, as of right, to amend his pleadings, frame a new and totally distinct issue with his co- plaintiff, and thus delay the final disposition of the case. The effect would be to delay an adjudication of Jeremiah 's rights until another issue had been decided, to which he was an entire Etranger. AU that Eadford would be required to do under the circumstances was to take the case as be found it, and protect the interests of the creditors in that case. He ����