CLAFLIN V. FlilSTOHEB. S51 �GlafijIN and others v. Flbtchbr and another. {Circuit Court, D. Indiana, May 31, 1881.) �1. Action— Reai Pabtt— Judgment. �Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove that a real party in a suit •was not a party to the record, but that he prosecuted or def ended the suit in the name of a nominal party ; and, when so shown, the real party is conciuded by the judgment as effectually as if he had been & party to the record. �2. Case Stated. �X. by f raud induced the plaintiSs to sell him certain goods on time. Plaintifls afterwards brought an action of replevin against A., B., and C, then in possession of the goods, and in that action judgment was rendered against the plaintiSs. Plaintifls brought this suit against the defendants to recover the value of the goods. Hdd, that the judgment in the replevin suit was conclusive against the plain- tifls, it being shown that A., B., and 0. were the agents of the defend- ants, who had appeared and defended the suit in thelr name. �Demurrer. �Gordon, Lamb e Sheppard, for plaintiffs. �Rand d Taylor and Baker, Hord dt Hendricks, for defend- ants. �Gresham, d. J. This suit is brought by Glaflin & Co. against Stoughton A. Fletcher and Francis Churchman, for the value of a lot of dry goods which one George Hazard, by fraudulently representing that he was solvent, when in faot he was insolvent, induced the plaintiffs to sell to him on time. �It is averred that Fletcher & Churchman bought the gooda at sale on execution against Hazard, after being notified oIF the latter's fraud, and that the plaintiffs had cancelled the sale and demanded possession of the property. �The defendants answer that for some time before theirpur- chase of the goods they had been in the custody of John W- Cottom, Bobert S. Foster, and Ellis 'G. Shantlin, as the agents of the defendants; that prior to the marshal's sale the plaintiffs demanded possession of the goods of such agents, who, under instructions from the defendants, refused ��� �
