Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/192

 FIjANAGIN V. THOMPSON. 177 �Flanagin V. Thompson and others. �(Circuit Court, D. Maryland. November 7, 1881.) �1. Kes Adjtjdicata — Estoppei,. �Two mortgages of different properties were at the same time assigned to a bank by a wife as security for one note discounted for her husband. Ai ter- ■wards, in a proceeding in a state court for the foreclosure of one of ' the mortgages, the wife disputed the validity of the assignment, and resisted the claim of the bank to receive the money arising from a sale of the mort- gaged property. The issue thus raised was decided by the state court in favor of the bank, and the validity of the assignment to it was sustained. ' Subse- quently a proceeding to foreclose the other of th,e two mortgages was insti- tuted in the federal court, and the wife raised the same objection to the validity Of the as3is;nment to the bank. The bank pleadedthat the question of the validity of its assignment was rei adjudieata. Rdd, on the authority of Campbell v. Bankin, 99 U. S. 263 ; Cromwell v, Uounty ofSae, 94 U. S. 351 ; and . Davis V. Brown, Id. 423, that although the subject-matter of the case in the fed- eral court was not the same as that of the case in the state court, yet the mat- terput in issue having been the same, and the parties to the controversy the same, that the wife was estopped from again contesting the validity of the assignment upon the same ground as she had set up in the flrst case. �In Equity. �William Sheppard Bryan, for complainant. �John H. Handy, for defendants. �MoREis, D. J. This bill is filed by M«irgaretta M. Flanagin, wife of William S. Flanagin, a citizen of Pcnnsylvania, against Hedge Thompson, a citizen of Maryland, and the Easton National Bank of Maryland. �The bill alleges that the defendant Thonapson in 1867 executed a mortgage of land in Maryland to secure a bond for the payment of $5.000, which bond and mortgage, by proper assignments, had become the property of the com- plainant, and that, except the sum of $1,000, no part of the money intended to be secured had been paid, but that the same was long overdue and the mort- gage in default. The bill further alleges that the Easton National Bank of Maryland has possession of the bond and mortgage, and sets up a claim to the same by virtue of a pretended assignment, which the complainant charges is null and void. The bill prays that the pretended assignment to the bank may be annulled and set aside, and that the mortgage land may be sold for the payment of the mortgage debt. The bank, by its answer, asserts the validity of the assignment to it, giving the history of the transaction by which It ac- quired the mortgage, and also, in an amended answer, pleads, in bar of the action, that the same matters put in controversy by the bill had been adjudi- cated by the court of appeal of Maryland in a cause between the same parties. The mortgagor makes no def ence. He admits that the mortgage ia in default and that the title of the bank is valid. v.9,no.4— 12 ��� �