SMITH ». TOWN OF ÔHTAEIO. �of the stoppe! as to ail matters which might'hate Heen liti- gated, but were not in fact, is confined to' cases where the second action is brought upon the eame claim or cause of action as that on which the first -was broilght ; and it isheld that, when the second action between the same parties iatpon a different claim or demand, thejudgment in the prior ac- tion operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted in the forràer action, upon the deter- mination of -which the finding or verdict was rendered. Ac- cordingly, it was decided that where the plaintiff had been defeated in an action upon coupons of county bonds, upon the ground that the bonds were void against the county because they had been fraudulently issued by the county judge, that judgment did not conclude the plaintiff in a subsequent action against the county, brought upon subsequently maturing cou- pons of the same bonds, in which it was made to appear that the plaintiff was an innocent purchaser of the coupons for value and before maturity. The decision prooeeds upon the ground that the question whether the bonds were void as against an innocent holder, for value and before maturity, was not litigated or determined in the former suit, and was therefore open to be litiffated in the second action. �Accepting Cromwell v. County of Sac as decisive of the doc- trine that the former adjudication is an estoppel only as to the matters in issue or points in eontroversy, upon the deter- mination of which the finding or verdict was rendered, it re- mains to apply that doctrine to the present case. Conced- edly, it was not decided that the acts of the agents in issuing thfe bonds did not bind the defendant, notwithstanding the defendant ratifled the transaction, because the effect of the ratification was not considered. But it was decided, upon ail the evidence in the case, that the acts of the agents were not binding upon the defendant. Now, what was the matter in issue or point in eontroversy in that action, within the mean- ing of the rules of estoppel ? Cromwell v. County of Sac is an authority that in an action where there was no issue as to the right of a bona Jide puroliaser to recover upon bonds, that ����
