Res judicata does not bar reconsideration of a pure question of law in a later case on different property and cause of action.

A final decision between the same parties binds them on factual findings through res judicata and, where appropriate, issue estoppel, but it does not bar reconsideration of a pure question of law in a later proceeding founded on different property and a different cause of action. The earlier consolidation proceedings were final as to the parties' status and relationship, yet that finality did not extend to the legal question of inheritance in the subsequent matter. A competent court may therefore decide the legal issue correctly in the later case, even though earlier factual determinations remain binding.

---

---

Issues: Whether earlier consolidation proceedings between the same parties, relating to different property and a different cause of action, operated as res judicata on a pure question of law in the later proceeding.

Analysis: The earlier adjudication had become final and bound the parties on findings of fact relating to their status and relationship. However, where the subsequent proceeding concerns different property and rests on a different cause of action, a prior decision on a pure question of law does not operate as res judicata in the later proceeding. The binding effect of an earlier judgment in such a situation may extend to issues of fact through estoppel, including issue estoppel, but it does not prevent a competent court from deciding the legal question correctly in the later case.

Conclusion: The prior judgments were res judicata only on factual findings and not on the pure question of law relating to inheritance in the later proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: A final decision between the same parties binds them on the same subject matter, but where the subsequent proceeding is founded on a different cause of action and different property, a prior ruling on a pure question of law does not bar reconsideration in the later case.

---