§ 1424. Successive causes of action A recovery for death for the benefit of the widow and next of kin will not bar a recovery for the benefit of decedent's estate on account of the suffering and loss sustained by decedent through the injuries, where death was not instantaneous.61 A judgment for the plaintiff in forcible entry and detainer is not a bar to a suit for damages which defendant may have sustained.$2 A decree awarding alimony is not a bar to a subsequent action for divorce and permanent alimony or division of property." § 1425. Defenses concluded The doctrine of res adjudicata applies, not only to the questions brought forward by the defendant, but to every question open to consideration as part of the subject of litigation, and which could have been then presented."* 61 St. Louis & s. F. R. Co. v. Goode, 142 P. 1185, 42 Okl. 784, L. R. A. 1915E, 1141; Rev. Laws 1910, §§ 5279, 5281, 5282. 62 Sanders v. Cline, 101 P. 267, 22 Okl. 154. 63 A decree awarding the wife the right to occupy and cultivate a certain half of the husband's homestead, in a suit under Rev. Laws 1910, § 4975, for alimony alone, held not a bar to her subsequent action for divorce and permanent alimony or division of the property. Lewis v. Lewis, 39 Okl. 407, 135 P. 397. 64 Engle v. Legg, 39 Okl. 475, 135 P. 1058; Furneaux v. First Nat. Bank, 17 P. 854, 39 Kan. 144, 7 Am. St. Rep. 541. Judgment that plaintiff, under contract with deceased ancestor, owned an undivided one-third of all realty owned by ancestor at his death, and quieting her title on prayer for general relief, etc., and defendant's allegation of own. ership by virtue of will precluded reopening of questions of title, and ownership as between them, and defense of title under transactions between defendant and ancestor prior to first action. Steele v. Stevenson, 104 Kan. 469, 179 P. 304. In an action to recover rent under a written lease, a defense that other property was substituted for that described in the written instrument, which avoided the lease, was adjudged invalid. Thereafter an action was brought for installments of rent after the rendition of the former judgment. Defendant claimed that the substitution of property previously litigated changed the contract to one in parol, not enforceable under the statute of frauds. Held, the defense was res judicata. Dixon v. Caster, 70 P. 871, 65 Kan. 739. A final judgment in an action against the city to recover on coupons attached to city bonds, where the defenses were that the bonds were illegal, is a bar to the reconsideration of the same defenses in a subsequent action between the same parties on other coupons attached to the same bonds. Garden City v. Merchants' & Farmers' Nat. Bank, 69 P. 325, 65 Kan. 345, 93 Am. St. Rep. 284. Two notes were given at the same time for part payment of a header. DIVISION III-PERSONS TO WHOM BAR AVAILABLE § 1426. Mutuality of estoppel Estoppel by judgment must be mutual.65 A person who is not bound by a judgment cannot ordinarily avail himself thereof as res judicata. 66 § 1427. Parties or privies Only parties and their privies are bound by a judgment."7 A privy must have acquired his interest after suit or after judgment.es A judgment of restitution obtained against a tenant in an action for forcible entry and detainer, without notice to the landlord, is not a bar to a subsequent action in the nature of ejectment by the landlord against the party obtaining such restitution."9 70 A judgment in favor of an agent binds the adverse party in a subsequent suit against the principal. Where one who has obtained a decree quieting his title as to another person conveys all of his interest in the property involved, such decree is a bar in an action by the defendant to quiet his title as to the grantee."1 Where a purchaser of property agrees to pay the purchase price to a third person, in payment of his vendor's debt, and the third person sues both the purchaser and the vendor in the same suit, and Both were executed by the same maker to the same payee. In an action brought on one of the notes, judgment was rendered for defendant for costs. Held, in a subsequent action between the same parties on the other note, that the judgment in the former act was not a defense when defendant's answer failed to show that all the defenses that might have been tried in the former action were decided in defendant's favor. Knickerbocker v. Ream, 21 P. 795, 42 Kan. 17. A judgment for defendant in bank's suit on bill of exchange, alleging a balance due, after credits, in which defendant counterclaimed, was res judicata as to his subsequent suit to recover on item admitted as a credit in the former suit. Farmers' State Bank of Temple v. Andruss, 63 Okl. 310, 165 P. 172. 65 Cressler v. Brown, 79 Okl. 170, 192 P. 417. 66 De Watteville v. Sims, 44 Okl. 708, 146 P. 224. 71 Where P. sued to cancel deeds on the ground of fraud, and obtained a decree quieting his title as to W., and after the judgment P. conveyed the land, the judgment against W. was a bar to an action by him to quiet his title against such grantee. Weer v. Bell (Okl.) 174 P. 500. obtains judgment against both, and the purchaser appeals, the third person may still maintain the action against the purchaser, though the judgment against the vendor is still standing, unreversed and unsatisfied.72 A judgment against the defendant in a suit in the nature of a creditors' bill will not inure to the benefit of another creditor of the defendant, who is neither a party nor privy to the judgment." Where a creditor in attachment against the debtor obtains a judgment and a sale of the property attached, the judgment is not binding on another creditor who has a prior and valid chattel mortgage, and who was not a party to the attachment suit." § 1428. Joint and several contractors The common-law rule making a judgment against one joint maker of a note a bar to further proceedings against the other joint makers has been so far modified by statute that an obligation appearing to be joint will be presumed joint and several until such presumption is overcome, so that any one of the joint makers of a note may be proceeded against severally without prejudice to the rights of the holder against other makers.75 § 1429. Joint tort-feasors One joint tort-feasor is not benefited by a judgment against the other." 76 But a judgment against one tort-feasor, followed by satisfaction, may be pleaded in bar by the other joint tort-feasors." In an action against a master and servant for damages caused by the negligent act of the servant, a judgment for the servant is not a bar to a recovery against the master.78 72 Plano Mfg. Co. v. Burrows, 19 P. 809, 40 Kan. 361. 73 Kinkel v. Chase, 102 Kan. 275, 169 P. 1134. 74 Gleason v. Wilson, 29 P. 698, 48 Kan, 500. 75 McMaster v. City Nat. Bank of Lawton, 101 P. 1103, 23 Okl. 550, 138 Am. St. Rep. 831. 76 City of Tulsa v. Wells, 79 Okl. 39, 191 P. 186. 77 Westbrook v. Mize, 10 P. 881, 35 Kan. 299. 78 In action against carrier and two of its trainmen for negligent killing of plaintiff's husband, a judgment for the trainmen was not a bar to a recovery against carrier as to alleged negligence of trainmen. Chicago, R. L & P. Ry. Co. v. Brooks (Okl.) 179 P. 924. DIVISION IV.-JUDGMENTS CONCLUSIVE IN General § 1430. Nature-In general A question in issue in a former suit and there determined cannot be litigated in any future action by the same parties or their privies upon the same or a different cause of action." A finding of fact of the trial court cannot be considered an adjudication, or used as evidence, unless some other ground can be found for its use than merely that it is a finding of the court.so The reasons given by the appellate court for affirming a judgment are not an estoppel binding on the parties, as the conclusiveness of a judgment resides in the judgment itself, and not in the reasons of the court in pronouncing it.81 § 1431. Failure to appeal When a court, having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties to an action, renders judgment therein, and the party aggrieved thereby fails to effect an appeal from such judgment within the time and in the manner provided by law, such judgment is res adjudicata as to all matters necessarily involved in such action, and therefore presumably considered by the court, save alone such propositions appearing in the record as relate to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter and parties to such action. 82 79 McDuffie v. Geiser Mfg. Co., 138 P. 1029, 41 Okl. 488; Rennolds v. Guthrie, 103 Kan. 829, 177 P. 359; Comanche Ice & Fuel Co. v. Binder & Hillery (Okl.) 172 P. 629. so Mitchell v. Insley, 7 P. 201, 33 Kan. 654. 81 Citizens' Bank v. Brigham, 60 P. 754, 61 Kan. 727, reversing judgment Brigham v. Jansen, 58 P. 1117, 9 Kan. App. 889. The Supreme Court in a prior case decided that a legislative committee appointed under a statute to select a site for an insane asylum had no authority to purchase the site selected, but that such authority rested in the board of trustees of certain charitable institutions, and hence enjoined the committee from making the purchase. Thereafter the state brought mandamus to compel the board of trustees to make the purchase. Held, that the expression in the prior decision as to the board's authority to make the purchase was not conclusive in the second case; the expression not constituting the judgment of the court, but merely one of the reasons for the judgment. State v. Hornaday, 62 P. 998, 62 Kan. 334. 82 Manley v. Park, 64 P. 28, 62 Kan. 553, judgment affirmed 23 S. Ct. 208, 187 U. S. 547, 47 L. Ed. 296; Board of Com'rs of Atoka County v. Cypert (Okl.) 166 P. 195. § 1432. Judgments of federal courts The judgments of federal courts having jurisdiction of parties and subject-matter, unless corrected therein or by appeal, are final and conclusive on the state courts.8 83 § 1433. Probate jurisdiction Proceedings in the county court, when exercising jurisdiction concurrent with the district court, are considered in the same manner and with like intendment as the proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction, and its records, orders, judgments, and decrees are accorded like force, effect, and legal presumption as the records, orders, judgments, and decrees of the district court.84 § 1434. Finality of determination Where a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties to an action, renders judgment therein, and the party aggrieved fails to effect an appeal, the fact that a proceeding in error from the judgment was taken, and was dismissed by the su preme court for noncompliance with the statute, will not change the rule as to the conclusiveness of the judgment of the court below.8 85 In a proceeding to foreclose a mechanic's lien on certain property, a personal judgment against the former owner is final, and cannot be overcome by proof of payment prior to judgment. 83 Rennolds v. Guthrie, 103 Kan. 829, 177 P. 359. Plaintiff brought an action in the state court, and a judgment was rendered against him. At his request, the judgment was vacated, and the cause was set down for another trial. Before the second trial he dismissed the action. and subsequently brought a like action against the same parties in the federal court, which court held that the former proceedings barred plaintiff from maintaining the action in that tribunal. Afterwards plaintiff brought a similar action against the same parties in the state court. Held, that the deci sion of the federal court, holding the plaintiff to be barred from maintaining another action, was conclusive between the parties and those in privity with them. Hyatt v. Challiss, 53 P. 467, 59 Kan. 422. 84 Carmichael v. Pierce, 61 P. 583, 10 Okl. 176. A decree of a county court touching matters within its jurisdiction, when not appealed from, is conclusive on all persons. Greer v. McNeal, 69 P. 891, 11 Okl. 519, judgment affirmed 69 P. 893, 11 Okl. 526. 85 Manley v. Park, 64 P. 28, 62 Kan. 553, judgment affirmed 23 S. Ct. 208, 187 U. S. 547, 47 L. Ed. 296. 86 On opening judgment by default on cross-petition to foreclose mechanic's lien on application of purchaser of property, personal judgment against |