Eastman v. Barker

98 A. 65, 78 N.H. 183, 1916 N.H. LEXIS 32

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Decided: June 6, 1916
• Status: Published

Opinion

Plummer, J.

After a hearing of this case at which all the parties-interested in the trust estate, or that might by any possibility be interested, were represented, the court lhade a decree of distribution to which no exception was taken.

A decree or judgment rendered in an action is conclusive as to-all matters that were directly in issue. King v. Chase, 15 N. H. 9; Chamberlain v. Carlisle, 26 N. H. 540; Smith v. Smith, 50 N. H. 212; Sanderson v. Peabody, 58 N. H. 116; Hearn v. Railroad, 67 N. H. 320. And a'judgment “concludes the parties, not only as to ev^ry matter which was offered and received to sustain or to defeat the-suit, but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Metcalf v. Gilmore, 63 N. H. 174, 189; Morgan v. Burr, 58 N. H. 470; MacDonald v. Railway, 71 N. H. 448, 457; Chesley v. Dunklee, 77 N. H. 263, 267.

All parties interested, or that might be interested, having been represented at the hearing of this case, and a decree having been made, to which no exception was taken, that decree is conclusive,, and no question as to -its validity can be raised.

The case was transferred by the trial court at the request of the-plaintiff. But a brief has been submitted by him in support and approval of the decree. Under these circumstances a further consideration of the case by this court is not demanded.

Case discharged.

All concurred. -