Case ID: nh_78/html/0183-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Plummer, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rockingham,
    June 6, 1916.
    Edwin G. Eastman, Trustee, v. Ella M. Barker & a.
    
    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 bo 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.
   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. -