This issue has therefore become res judicata (Desaulnier v. Desaulnier, 97 N.H. 171; Poulicakos v. Poulicakos, 94 N.H. 233, 235) and so the Court's denial of the defendant's motion was not error. However, a different question is presented by the plaintiff's motion which asks for further equitable relief. Whether this should be granted him is clearly a matter for the Court's discretion. Sandberg v. Sandberg, 81 N.H. 317. An examination of the record convinces us that the circumstances here are such that the Court has a strong duty to scrutinize "the total situation" (see Powell v. Powell, 97 N.H. 301, 303) after hearing all the evidence the parties may introduce on the question of whether justice requires that the plaintiff's motion be granted. Ela v. Ela, 63 N.H. 116, 122; Bussey v. Bussey, 95 N.H. 349. Since the plaintiff's motion was granted as a matter of law when discretion should have been exercised, there must be a new trial. Vallee v. Company, 89 N.H. 285, 291. It follows the order is

. . . Whether justice requires a modification of the decree must be determined from all the facts in the case." Ela v. Ela, 63 N.H. 116, 121, 122. It is contended by the libelee that the court cannot order him to pay the libelant additional alimony, because there was an agreement between them, upon which the decree was based, that he should pay her one thousand dollars as alimony, which should be in lieu of any and all obligations for her support.

Spaulding v. Groton, 68 N.H. 77, 78; Fowler v. Brooks, 64 N.H. 423, 424; Lawrence v. Smith, 45 N.H. 533. The revisory power over orders as to alimony, allowance, and custody made upon a decree of divorce or nullity, given by section 18, chapter 175, Public Statutes, does not open upon an application thereunder the decree of divorce or nullity upon which such orders may have been based. Ela v. Ela, 63 N.H. 116, 121; Folsom v. Folsom, 55 N.H. 78, 81. There has been no application by either party to revise the decree of nullity, and no ground has been suggested upon which a new trial could be granted. The defendant's objection to the competency of the decree of nullity as a foundation for the order to which he excepts is a collateral — not a direct — attack upon the judgment.

Whether justice requires a modification of the decree must be determined from all the facts in the case." Ela v. Ela, 63 N.H. 116, 121, 122. In Cross v. Cross, there was no decree or application for alimony in the original proceeding.

Whether justice requires a modification of the decree must be determined from all the facts in the case. (Ela v. Ela , 63 N.H. 116; Graves v. Graves , 108 Mass. 314; Sparhawk v. Sparhawk , 120 Mass. 391; Thomas v. Thomas , 41 Wis. 233; Semrow v. Semrow , 23 Minn. 214; Thurston v. Thurston , 38 Ill.App. 464.)          H.