From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eastman v. Barker

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 6, 1916
98 A. 65 (N.H. 1916)

Opinion

Decided June 6, 1916.

A decree of distribution, rendered after a hearing at which all parties interested, or that might be interested, were represented and as to which no exception was taken, is conclusive, and no questions as to its validity can be raised in the supreme court.

BILL IN EQUITY, praying for advice as to the termination and distribution of the trust estate created by the will of Hiram Barker, and for a decree of distribution. Various questions arising under this trust have been considered by the court in the following cases: Edgerly v. Barker, 66 N.H. 434; Edgerly v. Barker, 67 N.H. 443; Brown v. Berry, 71 N.H. 241; Barker v. Barker, 73 N.H. 353; Barker v. Eastman, 76 N.H. 277.

A decree of distribution was made by the superior court and the case was transferred, on the request of the plaintiff, from the January term, 1916, by Kivel, J., for the consideration and advice of this court as to the validity of the decree.

Eastman, Scammon Gardner, for the plaintiff.

Leslie P. Snow (by brief and orally), for the defendants.


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 made 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 every 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.


Summaries of

Eastman v. Barker

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 6, 1916
98 A. 65 (N.H. 1916)
Case details for

Eastman v. Barker

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN G. EASTMAN, Trustee, v. ELLA M. BARKER a

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Jun 6, 1916

Citations

98 A. 65 (N.H. 1916)
98 A. 65

Citing Cases

Hubley v. Goodwin

Since the negligence of both Goodwin and Hubley was an essential issue in the prior action at law, the…