850 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �ail the copartners; and to sustain this defence there bas been produced in evidence the record of a suit in a state court, commenced by the present defendant, Durant, as plaintifif, against Grifïïth, Wundrum and Abendroth, since the adjudi- cation and appointment of the assignee in this matter, which record, it is claimed, estops the plaintiff in this action to deny that he, together with Griffith and Wundrum, constituted the firm. �The suit waa on promissory notes of the firm of Griffith & Wundrum. The complaint alleged that Abendroth, Griffith & Wundrum constituted the firm. Abendroth alone appeared and defended the action. In his answer he denied that he was a general partner in the firm of Griffith & Wundrum, and alleged that said firm was a limited partnership, under the laws of New York, and that he was the special partner. It does not appear by the record that the defendants Griffith & Wundrum were served with process, but it is recited that they made def ault. The issue raised by the answer was tried and determined in favor of the plaintiff in that suit. The finding of the court was that Abendroth was a general part- ner, and the plaintiff had judgment, which was affirmed by the court of appeals. �It is contended on the part of the defendant that this adju- dication in the state court, being on the precise question as to whether Abendroth was a general partner, and being later in time than the adjudication of the bankruptcy court that the firm was eomposed of Griffith & Wundrum alone, is con- clusive against Abendroth, so that he cannot dispute or ques- tion the fact so found against him. But it is a complete answer to this alleged estoppel that the present suit is not brought by Abendroth individually, but by him in his repre- sentative capacity, as assignee in bankruptcy. A judgment estops only the parties to the suit, nominal or real, and their privies; and the plaintiff in this suit is not the same person or party who was defendant in the suit in the state court. Abendroth sues here as representing the estate of the bank- rupts. He is suing merely as trustee, or as an officer of the court, and his rights, as such trustee or officer, are the rights ��� �
