Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/401

 BMITH O. TOWÏf OF ONTARIO. 38T �4. SAMB—AomîCT.—Therefore, an adjudication that certain bon(fe"rere originally issued by the agents of ihs defendant -vrithout authority, will preclude the plaintifl from showing in auother action a ratilica- tion by the defendant of the acts of his agents. �Motion for a New Trial. �C. T. Richardson and Albertus Perry, for complainant. �W. F. Coggswell, for defendant. �Wallace, D. J. This motion for a new trial involves the single question whether'or not the judgment in the former action between the parties concludea the plaintiff upon the issnes in the present sait. �The former action was brought to recover instalments of interest on certain bonds of the defendant falling due April 1, 1875. The present action is to recover instalments of inter- est on the same bonds falling due April 1, 1876. In the first action a verdict for the defendant was directed by the court- and judgment was entered aocordingly. The defendant now insists upon that judgment as conclusively establishing the defenee that the bonds are invalid. �The complaint in the Ërst action alleged, in substance, that the bonds were executed and issued by agents of the de- fendant, in compliance with authority conferred upon the agents by statute. The answer controverts these allegations. Upon the trial the defendant moved the court to direct a ver- dict for the defendant, upon the ground that the agents had issued the bonds without compliance mth the statute in sev- eral specified particulars. The court ruled with the defend- ant, and ordered a verdict aocordingly. In the present action the same issue is presented by the pleadings, but upon the trial the plaintiff proved that, af ter the bonds- had ■ been issued, the defendant ratified the acts of the agents in exe- cuting and issuing the bonds. In the former action eom'ô evidence was given which tended to prove a ratification, but the point whether there had been such ratification or not was not decided or considered. The precise question now is whether the plaintiff is precluded, by the former adjudication, from showing that, altbough the bonds were -originally iSsued ����