Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/483

 HOWARDS V. SELDEN. 471 �itors' bill — a bill for the benefit not only of themselves, but bf the other crediter having claim against the estates of Charles "Selden and Ms sureties, and of Henry Gordon, deputy of Charles Selden, and his sureties. It bas never been contended that as between such creditors in a common suit in equity there must be a privity ofcontract. Besides, this suit of the Howards is not founded upon the bond either of Charles Selden and his sureties, or of Henry Gordon and his sureties. Those bonds do not enter into the present litigation. This suit of the Howards is brought upon the decree of April, 1875, pro- nounced by the circuit court of Powhatan, which settled the rights of ail the parties to that suit, which was not appealed from, and which, as to those parties, stands irrevocable. The bonds of the sheriff and the deputy sheriff were merged int6' that decree.. They are res jvdicata. They cannot again be brought into litigation. Nothing can be alleged against the decree of the circuit court of Powhatan but fraud or want of jurisdiction, or payment; and, in point of fact, such objec- tions would be idle as against that decree. The suit here, in another jurisdiction, by non-residents of the state, is brought upon that decree; and that decree cannot be impeaehed col- laterally in this court by the parties to it. It bas here the quality of absolute verity. If the statute of limitations had barred suits upon the two fiduciary bonds upon which that decree was based, or if laches or staleness had been relied on, these defences should bave been pleaded or made in the cir- cuit court of Powhatan. They cannot be pleaded here. �3. The fact that the suit of the Howards in this court is brought upon the decree of the state court settling thô rights and liabilities of the parties to that suit, disposes of the third objection of Stringer's executer. It is true that the repre- sentatives neither of St. John's estate, nor of Cooke's estate, were technical parties to the suit in the state court, though their testators or intestates were; and, not having been, as representatives, parties, tbey had an election whether or not to accept the determinations of that court in their favor. It was optional with the Howards to proceed upon the bond bf iSelden, or upon the decree of the state court ; and it wa'' ����