#### Benjamin Moore & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John W. Clark, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 22,504.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 19, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Benjamin Moore & Company, plaintiff, against John W. Clark, defendant, to recover the amount of an unpaid balance due under an assignment of part of the proceeds of the sale of stock of defendant. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings a writ of error.

The subject-matter of this action was adjudicated in an attachment suit in which plaintiff intervened, and recovered a judgment.in his favor and accepted the amount thereof.

Elbert C. Ferguson, for plaintiff in error.

Rice, Lowes, O’Neil & Richards, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

*192Abstract of the Decision.

1. Judgment, § 527 * —when res judicata as to rights of all parties in attachment suit. A judgment in an attachment suit which adjudicates the rights of all parties properly before the court either by intervening petition or by valid service of process is binding upon all such parties and is res judicata of their rights in the subject-matter of the suit.

2. Estoppel, § 16*—when intervener in attachment suit may not claim that judgment was invalid. An intervener in an attachment suit who recovered a judgment therein in his favor and accepted the sum found due cannot claim in another action that such judgment was invalid.

3. Attachment, § 250*—when judgment is not erroneous in form.y Where the entry of a judgment in an attachment suit referring to the adjudication of the issue arising under an intervening petition was abbreviated but in such form that it was not at all difficult to determine its definite meaning, held that it was sufficient.