3T2i FEDERAL nnponrnn.
`The defendants Baltimore, Liles, Walden, and Goltra answer the bill
jointly, admitting the allegations thereof, and that they are severally tht.
owners of the certain judgments obtained by them in 1886, in the cir·
cuit court of Linn county, Or., against Foster, as alleged in the bill;
and also allege that Goltra is the owner of a certainhother judgment ob-—
tained by him in said circuit court, on February 23, 1886, against said
Foster, on twelve promissory notes and one account theretofore assigned
to him, for the sum of $16,119.7 0, which judgments they allege are each
_ a lien on the property of Foster in said county; and that the property
conveyed to the Crawfords and Pearce was so conveyed with intent to
hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Foster, including the defend-
ants. `
t Afterwards the defendants Foster and the two Crawfords filed a cross-
bill, alleging therein that on February 10,_1886,’Goltra commenced a ·
suit in the circuit court aforesaid against the plaintiffs in the cross-bill
to enforce the judgment for $16,119.70 theretofore obtained against Fos-
ter, as stated in his answer herein, against the property in question, on
the ground that the conveyances thereof by Foster to the Crawfords and
Pearce were invalid, because made with intent to hinder, delay, and de-
fraud the creditors of the grantor, including Goltraand his assignors;
_ that the defendants in said suit answered the complaint therein, deny-
ing the allegations of fraud, and alleging that said conveyances were
made in good faith, and tor an adequate consideration, to which answer
there was a reply by Golta; that the cause was heard on the issue thus
, made, when the court, on July 9, 1886, found in favor of the defend-
ants, and dismissed the suit; that Goltra took an appeal to the supreme
court of the state, where, on April 11, 1887, said appeal was dismissed,
whereby the judgment of said bircuit court remains in full force and
effect, and Goltra is thereby estopped to say that said conveyances are
invalid, for the reason assigned. · ‘ l
~ A demurrerto this cross-bill was overruled, and the same taken for
confessed. 34 Fed. Rep. 496. ‘ And it is now admitted by counsel that
Goltrais estopped to say in this suit, in support of said judgment, that
these conveyances are invalid, because made in fraud of creditors.
‘ " But counsel maintain that the judgment of Goltra, obtained on Febru-
ary 23d, for $1,637.20, is not within the operation of said estoppel, be-
cause the judgment was not included in the suit out of which the estop-
pel arises. It is true that the decree in the former case between the
‘ parties to the cross-bill was given in a suit in which the right to enforce
this particular judgment against this property was not involved. But
the question on which such right depends was so involved. A question
4 contested and determined in one case is determined, so far as the parties
to the same are concerned, forall time and all purposes. · It cannot be
ground over again in another action. A
The question of the validity of Foster’s conveyances to the Crawfords
and Pearce, for the cause alleged, namely, that they were executed with
intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, was the principal and only
contested question in the suit of Goltra against Foster and the Crawfords j`