838 FEDERAL REPORTER. �298; Butler v. Suffolh Glass Co. 126 Mass. 512; Drought v. Curtiss, �8 How. (N. Y.) 56. �As there is no claim that the trial in the state court was not a full and fair trial, leave to file the supplemental answer should be granted, and the judgment roll, when offered in evidence, would be a bar to the further prosecution of the libellants' claim. Bven if not pleaded, this judgment, as an adjudication against the libellants upon the same breaches of contract alleged by them in their libel, would be com- petent, if not conclusive, evidence against them on the trial. IIop- kins V. Lee, 6 Wheat. 109; Young v. Rummall, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) 478; S. C. 5 Hm, (N. Y.) 61. �Ab the judgment in the state court may be reversed on the appeal pending, the libel should not be dismissed, but the proceedings stayed untU the determination of the appeal. �NOTE. Conclusiveness of Judgments in Personam. �General Bule. An adjudication upon the raerits of a demand by a court o£ competent jurisdiction is conclusive against the parties and those in privity wlth them before every other court, both of the cause of action and of every fact whieh is a necessary part of that cause of action ; and, with regard to the facts going to make up the cause of action, the adjudication is conclusive not only in a subsequent suit upon the same cause of action, but in any suit that may be instituted between the same parties or their privies.(a) �Judgment must have been Final. In order to bar a new suit upon the same cause of action the judgment must have been flnal(6) in the sense of being capable of being made the subject of an appeal. No interlocutory judg- ment or decision upon a motion not going to the merits of the action will bar another suit upon the same demand.(c) The New York Code has, however, Bomewhat enlarged the efCect of interlocutory judgments. (d) �On THE Mkrits. ihe judgment, further, must have been reiulered on the merits to bar a new suit upon the Scame cause of action. Judgment upon a plea in abatement, or upon a plea to the jurisdiction, or because the suit is �(a)Bo(fcuin v. Satcher, 61 Ala. 81; Kelty v. Donlin, 70 ni. 378 j Stati y. Ramsburg, 43 Md, 325; De Proui V. Soyg-en», 70 Me. 266 i jlrfams v. Camaro», 40 Mich. 506; TOsonT. Daois, 32 Gratt. 92; Weturn M- f M. Co. V. Virginia Coal Co. 10 W. Va. 250: HendricIcSony. Iforcroas, i 0. K. Green, 417; Baliwin v. McCrae, Si Ga. 65i>; Tioga R. Co. t. Btoasburg tf O. R. Co. 20 Wall. 137; Aurora City v. We^t, 7 Wall. B2; Beloit y. .Morgan. lA. 619; GoodricU v. T/ie Olty,BWtin.b66; Dotjlev. Iieillij,lSl0W:i,liB; Pamter T. Hogue, 45 lowa, 426; Allie v. Schmitz, 17 WlB. IG:i; Il alh v. Frackleta n, 2i) Wia.320; Smitli v. Wat/, �9 Allen, 472; Jordan v. Pairctoth, 34 Ga. 47; D^marett v. Darg, 32 N. Y. 281; Eimer v. Richards, 25 m. 289; Baicock v. Cami>, 12 0hlo St. 11; BsU v. MeCulloch, 31 Ohin St. ,397; Sergeant T. ISwing, 36 Pa.St.l66; Cabotv. Wa3hingloa,4i Vt. 153; Gu/wooi? v. Ganonoi, 2;) Cal. 511 ; Frsnr.hv. Howard, It Ind. 465; Sliutilcaxdorth v. Uuglisy, 9 Bicli. 337; Stewart T. Dcnl, 24 Mo. 111; Waliier V. Mitchcll, IS B. Mon. 5(1. �(») Webb V. Buckeleio, 82 N. Y. 655. (c)Iil.; Coltina v. Jenninga, 42 lowa, 447. �id')Webi T. Buclcalew, tupra; Emton v. Ptckeragill, 75 N. Y. 539; Rtgga v. Purcell, 74 N. Y. 370: Dwight V. St. John, I5 N. Y. 203. ��� �
