Let us now, having established this principle, see the effect which has been given it by American, English, and civil law judges, and the extent to which in practice it has been carried.

Our contention is, of course, that the foundation of the principal sum, having been examined thoroughly by the Mixed Commission, and that Commission having determined the existence and amount of the principal and as a consequence the quantity of interest flowing therefrom, has settled all of these questions for all time to come.

An American case in point would be that of Edgell v. Sigerson (26 Missouri, 583), in which case, after judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a contract for the payment of money in installments, it was held that the only question open to litigation in respect to any subsequent installments was whether as to it the defendant was in default. The court in deciding the case used this language:

The integrity of the note was necessarily and directly in issue in the suit brought to recover the annual installments of interest, and the judgment in that case having been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction determined the question as to the alteration of the note and was conclusive between the same parties in another suit directly involving the same question.

A like decision has been made where a series of promissory notes had been given and prior litigation had been had with reference to one of them; for instance, in Meiers v. Purrier (21 Illinois Appeals, 551) the court held, in an action on the third of three notes given at the same time for the same consideration and as part of the same transaction, the record of a former suit on the other notes was admissible and conclusive of the partnership of the makers, which had then been in issue.

Again, in the case of Young v. Brehe (19 Nevada, 379; 3 American State Reports, 892; 12 Pacific Reporter, 564) it was held that where defense is interposed in a suit on a note that defendant made and executed to plaintiff a deed of land which was accepted in full payment of the note sued on and other notes due from the defendant to the plaintiff, the record of an action by the same plaintiff against the same defendant on one of the other notes, in which the same defense was made, and where it was decided that the deed was never delivered and accepted by defendant as alleged, was conclusive against the defendant in that action.

The courts have taken a similar position, the principle being the same, in cases involving the payment of successive installments. We will refer at this time simply to the case of Hobbolson v. Sherman (42 New York superior court; 10 Jones and S. 477), wherein a recovery in an action for the first installment under a contract calling for payment by installments was held conclusive as to the existence and validity of the contract in a subsequent action for other installments.

Rent cases are comparatively numerous. We will commence by referring to that of Love v. Waltz (7 California, 250), wherein it was held that judgment for a quarter's rent under a lease is conclusive evidence, so far as it goes, in an action of forcible entry for nonpayment of another quarter's rent under the same lease between the same parties. Of course it would not in itself be evidence conclusive of the existence of a subsequent lease or of actual payment or nonpayment under the latter

See also Kelsey v. Ward, 38 New York, 83; Tysen v. Tompkins, 10

Daly, 244; Drydock, etc., Railroad Company v. N. and A. Railroad Company, 22 New York Supplement, 556.

The doctrine of the cases last above mentioned is recognized In re Johnson (4 Court of Claims, 248), wherein it was held that a judgment of the Court of Claims, determining the annual rental value of private property of which the United States has possession, is conclusive on the claimant as to the measures of damages for occupation subsequent to its date.

The general underlying principle receives full application in the case of Empire State Nail Company . American Solid Leather Button Company (74 Federal, 864; 21 C. C. A., 152; 33 U. S. Appeals, 520), wherein the view was taken that where it appears of record that in a prior suit any particular question has been actually adjudicated the prior judgment is to that extent conclusive in any subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies relating to an instrument which forms the basis of the litigation in each.

The doctrine is fully recognized in the case of New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank (167 U. S., 371), wherein (on p. 398) the court said:

It follows, then, that the mere fact that the demand in this case is for a tax for one year does not prevent the operation of the thing adjudged, if in the prior case the question of exemption was necessarily presented and determined upon identically the same facts upon which the right of exemption is now claimed.

The case last quoted from cites with approval the opinion of Justice Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations, wherein (on p. 47) he declares that

The estoppel extends to every material allegation or statement which, having been made on one side and denied on the other, was at issue in the case and was determined therein.

We may close our citations of American authorities by referring to the case of Black River Savings Bank e. Edwards (10 Gray, Mass., 387), in which the position was taken by the court that recovery by judgment of a sum claimed to be due as interest on a promissory note precludes the defendant from contesting the payment of the principal on the ground that the note was procured by fraud.

For a complete review of the positions taken by the text writers with relation to this subject, we beg leave to refer to the comprehensive brief of Mr. Doyle, to be found on pages 12 et seq., Diplomatic Correspondence.

In a brief prepared last year by Messrs. Ralston & Siddons, in reply to a letter of Señor Mariscal, and given in full in the Diplomatic Correspondence, pages 51 et seq., this subject is further discussed from the standpoint of the civil law.

To the citations already given from the civil law others of importance remain to be added. We quote from Répertoire Général Alphabétique du Droit Français (vol. 11, title "Chose Jugée"):

255. Je réclame à titre d'héritier le paiement d'une dette; mon adversaire prétend qu'il est l'héritier du défunt et que, par suite, la confusion a éteint la dette dont il était tenu. Le tribunal déclare que c'est moi qui suis l'héritier, et condamne, en conséquence, le défendeur à verser entre mes mains la somme que je lui ai réclamée. Si plus tard j'agis de nouveau, contre la même personne, pour lui réclamer une maison dépendant de la succession, elle ne pourrait pas être admise à contester ma qualité d'héritier; je suis en droit de soutenir qu'il y a dans les deux procès identité d'objet. Il est vrai que dans le premier procès j'ai réclamé une somme d'argent, et que dans le second je réclame une maison; mais les deux procès ont mis en jeu un même droit, mon droit héréditaire; les deux instances ont, en réalité, le même objet.

(Bonnier, n. 869; Larombière, art. 1351, n. 86; Colmet de Sauterre, t. 5, n. 328, bis-VI; Demolombe, t. 30, n. 303; Garsonnet, t. 3, p. 251, sec. 467; Griolet, p. 104.) § 256. Il a été jugé, en ce sens, que le jugement rendu au sujet d'un des intérêts divers qui se fondent sur une question d'état a l'autorité de la chose jugée, en ce qui concerne l'état contesté, quant aux autres prétentions qui, reposant sur la même base, pourraient ultérieurement se produire. (Paris 1er juill. 1861, Patterson (S. 62. 2. 71; P. 61, 1153; D. 61. 2. 137.) Sic, Aubry et Rau, t. 8, p. 399, sec. 769, texte et note 113; Larombière, art. 1351, n. 85.)

We think the following section excellently states the underlying idea, and, accepting it, we submit that the tribunal before which we have the honor to appear must give full force and effect to the prior decision as res judicata:

§ 258. En un mot l'idée qui doit servir de guide pour savoir, s'il y a ou non identité d'objet est la suivante: en statuant sur l'objet d'une demande, le juge est-il exposé à contredire une décision antérieure en affirmant un droit nié, ou en niant un droit affirmé par cette précédente décision? S'il ne peut statuer qu'en s'exposant à cette contradiction, il y a identité d'objet et chose jugée. (Macardé, art. 1351, n. 4; Demolombe, t. 30, n. 299; Baudry-Lacantinerie, t. 2, n. 1289.)

Continuing our citations of illustrative cases, we quote sections 259 and 260:

$259. Ainsi, par exemple, lorsqu'à l'occasion de la démande en paiement d'une partie d'une dette s'élève une difficulté concernant la créance tout entière, la décision qui tranche cette difficulté a l'autorité de la chose jugée à l'égard de la partie de la dette dont le paiement n'a pas été primitivement demandé et donne lieu à des poursuites ultérieures. (Aubry et Rau, t. 8, p. 390, sec. 769, note 33; Larombière, art. 1351, n. 50.)

§ 260. Conformément à cette règle, la cour de cassation a décidé que, si une somme d'argent payable en plusieurs termes est due en vertu d'une même obligation, et qu'une difficulté soit soulevée au sujet de la validité de l'obligation, le jugement qui résout la difficulté, et ordonne le paiement d'un terme a sur ce point l'effet de la chose jugée relativement aux autres termes. (Cass., 20 dec. 1830, Thevenin.

(S. 31.

1. 41, P. Chr.) Sic, Demolombe, loc. cit.-V. aussi Cass., 4 nov., 1863, Larbana (S. 63. 1. 539, P. 64. 222, D. 64, 1. 38).)

Same authority, Title Chose Jugée, No. 226, says that—

La règle d'après laquelle l'autorité de la chose jugée ne s'attache pas aux motifs doit être écartée lorsque les motifs font corps avec le dispositif, lorsque, selon l'expression de la cour de cassation, ils sont nécessaires pour soutenir le dispositif. (Cass., 28 juin 1869; Biteau. (S. 69. 1, 422, P. 69. 1091. D. 71. 1. 223.) Sic Bonnier, N. 863. Laurent, t. 20. n. 30; Demolombe, t. 30, n. 29; Garsonnet, t. 3. p. 239 et 240, sec. 465. texte et note. 15.-V. aussi Cardot, Revue critique de leg. et de juris. 1863, p. 452.)

No. 227: Souvent en effet le dispositif ne contient qu'une partie de ce que le juge a décidé et l'autre partie se trouve dans les motifs. C'est ce qui se produit notamment lorsque le juge doit statuer successivement sur deux points et que la solution donnée pour le second est la conséquence nécessaire de celle qui est donnée pour le premier; le juge met la première solution dans les motifs sous forme de considérant, et le dispositif ne renferme que la seconde. Ainsi, au cas où le demandeur se prétend d'être le fils de telle personne décédée, et réclame à ce titre la succession, il peut se faire que le tribunal ne constate la filiation contestée que dans les motifs, et que le dispositif ne contienne simplement que l'attribution de l'hérédité. Il est manifeste que, dans les hypothèses de ce genre, l'autorité de la chose jugée ne doit pas s'attacher uniquement au dispositif; le jugement contient, en réalité, deux décisions, l'une renfermée dans le dispositif, l'autre insérée dans les motifs. (V. Trib. Castel-Sarrazen, 22 juin 1850, Nougaroles, S. 50. 2. 417.)

Bearing in mind the fact that Mexico distinctly contended that the Pious Fund was simply an arm of the Government and not a religious institution, and furthermore denied that the properties of the Pious Fund were as extensive as they were said to be by the claimants, we feel that all of the decisions to which reference has been given are directly in point. The issues above referred to having been clearly

raised, having been the subject of evidence and discussion on the part of both parties, being at the same time germane and in fact essential to a proper determination of the claim under the memorial, and the court having finally adjudicated upon the subject, nothing remains to prevent the old adjudication from being to the fullest extent res judicata, or forbids that there should flow from that decision the consequences claimed by the United States.

THE DOCTRINE OF OVERRULED CASES.

It

Señor Mariscal adduces in his letter of November 28, 1900, to Mr. Powell Clayton (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 31) the existence of overruled cases in our common law courts as proof that the rule of res judicata is not always adhered to in them. He has been led into this error by losing sight of the inherent and essential distinction between the rule of res judicata and the maxim stare decisis. When a doubtful or disputed principle of law has been decided by a court of last resort, men adopt it as a guide in their future transactions, and hence justice and public policy demand adherence to it when the same question is again presented, in other cases having different parties. is said, in English and American jurisprudence, to be a rule of decision. From this rule of decision courts are at liberty but disinclined to depart. This is all briefly expressed in the maxim stare decisis. If, as sometimes occurs, the same court afterwards concludes that it erred in its appreciation of law, it reconsiders the doctrine previously announced and overrules its former opinion; "such cases are called overruled cases." They are overruled as authoritative expositions of the law, because the court is convinced that it erred in pronouncing them. They no longer constitute a rule of decision.

The doctrine of res judicata, on the other hand, applies only to subsequent litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest or estate, called their privies. Where disputed matters are once determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment is always, everywhere, and forever conclusive as to such matters between the same parties and those claiming in privity with them. To this rule, there is absolutely no exception. There are no overruled cases in the law of res judicata. If courts were at liberty to overrule decisions when relied upon as res judicata and thereby destroy the effects of such judgments as res judicata, this principle would have to be abandoned; the two propositions involving a contradiction in terms.

With this distinction in mind, Señor Mariscal will recognize his misapplication of his suggestion of overruled cases.

CONSIDERATIONS WITH RELATION TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM.

It is not our intention to argue at any length the details affecting the merits of the claim for the Pious Fund. The United States relies absolutely, and, as we believe, with entire justice, upon the fact that these merits have once been the subject of consideration and examination by an entirely competent tribunal, and that tribunal having passed thereon, the American Government is relieved from any necessity for detailed discussion. Even if this were not the correct view, we would

be excused from entering upon the consideration of the merits as an independent proposition, because this branch of the subject has been so thoroughly treated by the Messrs. Doyle, of counsel, who have shown that a reexamination of the merits would bring about as its necessary result a judgment against Mexico considerably larger than that formerly awarded.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as bearing upon the justice of the contentions made on behalf of the United States, there are two or three features of the case to which we believe we are justified in inviting attention, and the first of these is that

THE PIOUS FUND WAS AT ALL TIMES CONSIDERED AS RELIGIOUS IN CHARACTER, AND ITS BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP VESTED IN THE CHURCH AUTHORITIES.

We need not do more than advert to the origin of this fund, springing as it did out of the pious desires of religious Catholics for the conversion of the heathen of the Californias to the truths of Christianity. While the fund remained under the control of the Jesuits these objects were faithfully promoted. When the Jesuits were removed, and for the default of other trustees the Spanish Government assumed control, its first act was (July 12, 1772) to carry out the desires of the founders; for the King's order (Transcript, p. 456) declared that he had assumed "all the rights of patronage which belonged to the regulars of the said order, and also those which they might possess in common with those other orders, without prejudice to these being devoted to the same purposes which they were before the time of the expulsion."

When the Spaniards were expelled from Mexico the Mexican Government followed the same policy. We find that the law of May 25, 1832, already cited at large in this brief, provides the manner in which the Government shall lease the rural property belonging to the Pious Fund, and that (sec. 6) "the proceeds of such property shall be deposited in the mint of the Federal city, to be wholly and exclusively destined for the missions of the Californias." It was further particularly directed that the board of management, consisting of three persons, should include an ecclesiastic. Among its powers were:

9. To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one of the Californias in accordance with their respective expenses and their available funds.

When, later on, the bishopric of California was created, article 6 of the law of September 19, 1836, provided:

The property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias shall be placed at the disposal of the new bishop and his successors, to be by them managed and employed for its objects or other similar ones, always respecting the wishes of the founders of the fund.

When, still later, and on February 8, 1842, the Mexican Government reassumed the management of the Pious Fund, it particularly declared that the proceeds of the property assumed should be disbursed “in such way and manner as it shall direct for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the donor in the civilization and conversion of the savages.

Even when the fund was finally incorporated in the national treasury the Government, by the decree of October 24, 1842, after insuring the payment of its revenues, declared that "the department in charge thereof