Res judicata turns on the earlier court's competence when it first heard the suit, not on later jurisdiction changes.

A former judgment operates as res judicata where the court deciding the earlier suit was, when it entertained that suit, competent to try the later suit if it had then been filed. A subsequent change in jurisdiction, including a change in pecuniary value or the forum that would now hear the matter, does not defeat the conclusive effect of the earlier decision. On that principle, the prior judgment barred relitigation of the same matter, and the decree below was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a former judgment operates as res judicata where the earlier and later suits were tried by courts of different jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was construed to mean that the relevant test is whether the court which decided the former suit was, at the time it entertained that suit, competent to try the subsequent suit if it had then been brought. A later change in jurisdiction, including a change arising from pecuniary value or the forum that would now try such a suit, does not prevent the earlier decision from operating as a conclusive bar.

Conclusion: The former judgment was res judicata and barred the present suit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree of the court below was upheld on the ground that the earlier decision conclusively barred relitigation of the same matter.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of res judicata, the competence of the court that decided the former suit is tested by the jurisdiction it had when that suit was brought, and not by a subsequent change in the jurisdictional position at the time of the later suit.

---