472 FBDEBAL BBPORTEB. �optional with the representatives of Cocke to consent to ba made parties defendant to the suit of the Howards here brought upon the decree of the state court, and to accept or �lot the amount which this court ordered to be paid to them. But the fact that this option existed, and that the represent- atives of both estates elected to accept the Powhatan court's �leeree as determining their rights, does not put it in the �)ower of Gordon's sureties to require them to repudiate that Jecree, and to require the Howards, so repudiating, to bring �•heir action upon Charles Selden's bond. The Powhatan ^lourt's decree was conclusive against all the parties to it, of which Stringer's executor was one, and this executor is estopped by it, on the principle of res judicata, from making this third objection. �4. As to the fourth ground of objection, that is virtually disposed of in what has already been said. If valid, it should bave been raised in Selden's suit for account in the circuit court of Powhatan. The suit here is upon a decree of that court which settled the liability of Gordon and his sureties to Selden or his estate, and to the estates of Cocke and St. John. The validity of that decree, even thougb it included a liability of Gordon and his sureties fro some other high sheriflf than Selden, cannot be impeaohed coUaterally in this court or in the suit here. At best, moreover, the objection is technieal only, and does not affect the merits of the case in a manner prejudicial to Stringer's executor. �5. The fifth objection strikes me as a non sequitur. AU the parties to the suit in the state court are bound by the decree there. That decree determined, as against all these parties, that Gordon and his sureties, who were parties, owed to Cocke's estate and to St. John's estate, respectively, two defined sums of money. I believe Cocke and St. John were, in their life-time, parties to the suit; but that, on their death, during its progress, it was inadvertently not revived as against theif representatives. Be this as it may, it was competent for that court to determine, as between the parties to that suit, the amount of Gordon's default as deputy sheriff, and to ascertain, as against him and his sureties, and as against ����
