DILWOBXH V. JOHNSON. 459 �DiLWOETH V. Johnson and another, Exr's, etc^ �{District Court, D. Nev) Jersey. April 5, 1881.) �1. State Court — Pakol Testimont — Conteadiction of Recoed. �Where a former adjudication of the matter in controversy in a state court is pleaded in a suit in the federal court, the plaintifE will net be permitted to contradict the record of the state court hy paroi testi- mony. — [Ed. �In Equily. �Nixon, D. J. The bill is filed in this case by Urania J. Dil- •worth, a resident of the state of Pennsylvania, against George S. Johnson and Gardner B. Johnson, executors of the last will and testament of William Johnson, deceased, for the con- struction of said will. The two executors have severed in their pleadings to the bill of complaint, one of them uling a plea and the other an answer, but both setting up as a de- fence a former adjudication of the matters in controversy by the court of chancery and the court of errors and appeals of the state of New Jersey, in a suit in which the complainant and the defendants were parties. �The testimony taken sustains the issue thus raised. It appears that in the year 1872 one Harriet Poulston, who was a sister of the complainant and one of the beneficiaries under the will of the said Johnson, filed her bill, with her husband, in the court of chancery of New Jersey, against the said exec- utors, and praying, practically, for the same relief as is asked for in the present case. The cqmplainant was then, as now, residing in Pennsylvania and beyond the Jurisdiction of the state court, and hence was entitled to her option to become or not to become a party to the proceedings. She made her election, appeared by counSel, became one of the party defend- ants in the cause, participated in the proceedings, and ob- tained a decree from the chancellor substantially in accord- ance with her view of the intentions of the testator. One of the executors carried the case to the court of errors and appeals, where the complainant again appeared by counsel, ��� �
