Res judicata on debt claims bars a second suit against the principal after judgment against an agent, and final judgment stands.

A judgment recovered on a debt claim against an agent bars a later suit on the same cause of action against the principal, because the creditor cannot maintain two valid judgments for the same demand. The earlier judgment remained legally effective despite the description of the parties used in that suit. A final entered judgment also could not be set aside by motion merely because the suing party later said it misunderstood the legal effect of the party description, where there was no fraud, misrepresentation, clerical error, or mismatch between what was adjudged and what was intended. The appeal succeeded, and judgment was directed for the appellants with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a judgment obtained against an agent on a debt claim bars a later suit on the same cause of action against the principal. (ii) Whether an entered judgment can be set aside by motion on the ground that the party suing proceeded under a mistaken understanding of the legal effect of the description of the parties.

Issue (i): Whether a judgment obtained against an agent on a debt claim bars a later suit on the same cause of action against the principal.

Analysis: The liability arose out of the same debt and the earlier suit had already resulted in judgment on that cause of action. The governing principle is that where a creditor elects to sue the agent and obtains judgment, he cannot afterwards maintain a second action on the same debt against the principal, because two valid judgments cannot subsist for the same demand. The form of the description used in the earlier suit did not alter the legal effect of the judgment once regularly pronounced.

Conclusion: The later suit was barred by the earlier judgment and could not be maintained.

Issue (ii): Whether an entered judgment can be set aside by motion on the ground that the party suing proceeded under a mistaken understanding of the legal effect of the description of the parties.

Analysis: The record did not show any fraud, misrepresentation, clerical slip, or discrepancy between what was adjudged and what was intended. A mere mistake of law as to the consequences of suing in a particular name does not furnish a basis for setting aside a final judgment by motion. The proper course, if any relief were available, was not summary interference with the entered judgment on the materials before the Court.

Conclusion: The judgment could not be set aside by motion on the ground advanced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order under appeal was set aside, and judgment was directed in favour of the appellants with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment recovered on a cause of action against an agent bars a subsequent action on the same cause against the principal, and a final judgment cannot be reopened by motion merely because the party later asserts that it misunderstood the legal effect of the proceedings.

---