S90 FEDBBAL BEFOBTEB. �question waa not concluded in a subsequent action by the adjudication in the former action. But that case does not decide that a former adjudication will not be conclusive upon a given question unless the decision turned upon precisely the same evidence as that 'which is introduced in the subse- quent action. The doctrine of estoppel becomes of very little practical value if, whenever a former adjudication is relied on, the former can be distinguished from the second by some variations in the evidence. The matter in issue or point in controversy may involve a number of minor issues, and it cannot be said not to have been deeided because some of these minor issues were not specifically considered. �The matter in issue has been deûned in a case of leading authority as "that matter upon which the plaintifiF proceeds by his action, and which the defendant controverts by his pleading." King v. Chase, 15 N. H. 9. The issues presented by the pleadings may be modified by the proceedings upon the trial, as where a defence is withdrawn from consideration, or where a count in the declaration is abaaidoned. However this may be, the matter in issue or the point in controversy is that ultimate fact or state of facts in dispute upon which the verdict or finding is predicated. If, in an action upon a note, the defendant denies the execution of the note, and a verdict is found for the plaintiff, the fact that the defendant executed the note is established finally for the purpose of ail subsequent litigation between the parties. It may be that this conclusion was reached upon the consideration of varions subordinate facts which do not appear in the subsequent action, or which stand altered by the case newly presented, yet the matter in issue is concluded by the former adjudica- tion. So, in an action against a principal upon a contract made by an agent, where the defendant denies the agency and the judgment is for the defendant, the fact that there was no agency is forever established for the purposes of future actions between the parties. It may be that the fact of an agency was attempted to be proved, on the trial of the former action, by shoning that the defendant had held out the per» ����
