294 PEDBBAL EEPOBTER. �against the old company, and the new Company waa not a party to and is not bound by the judgment. The plaintiff bas no lien on, or a claim against, or equity in respect of, any property received by the defendant which she ia entitled to enforce in this suit. �There is nothing in the point that Eowe and Dixon are not parties to thia suit. No such objection is taken in the an- swer. It was previously taken by plea and overruied. It is very clear that they are not necesSary or proper parties. The company bas been wound up and dissolved, and their func- tions are ended. No relief is prayed in regard to them. �The defendant contends that the questions in this suit are res adjudicata between the parties by reason of the judgment in the Miller suit. The plaintiff, citing Harris v. D,, L. d W. E. Co. 61 N. Y. 656, contends that the discontinuance of the suit after judgment destroyed the effect of the judgment. It is not necessary to pass on this point. �The proceedings in the admiralty suit cannot operate as res adjudicata. They are not so pleaded. The cause of action was different from that in the in personam suit, and the judg- ment in the latter suit was reeovered before the decree in the admiralty suit was entered. �I have earefully considered all the questions in this case, and the conclusion ia that the bill musi be dismissed, with costs. ���LOVEBIDGB V. LaRNBD. �{Circuit Court, S. D. Nea York. April 28, 1881.) �1. Rbkewal of Pirm Debt bt Partner— Patment of Unlawfot, In- THKB8T Applied to thb Principal — Bill to Ebdbem — Dbmur- �RER — COSTB. �A. loaned the flrm of B. & G. various sums at difEerent times, receiving firm notes, payable with unlawful interest. B. subsequently took up all the notes except one, giving therefor his bond, secured by mortgage and collaterals. B. paid part of the principal on the note not taken up, and the stipulated interest on all the loans. G. died. ��� �
