Restitution after reversed decree: money paid under a superseded order is recoverable, and res judicata-style bar may not apply.

Amounts paid under decrees that were later reversed or superseded were recoverable in restitution because the original decrees ceased to provide a valid legal basis for retention of the money. Section 16 of Regulation III of 1793 did not bar the suit, as it prevented reopening only of the same cause or question already finally heard and determined, not a claim arising from subsequent appellate events that altered the controversy. The earlier decrees were subordinate to the appellate order, which displaced them and governed the parties' rights and liabilities. The restitution claim was therefore maintainable and the objection based on the regulation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether amounts paid under decrees subsequently superseded by an appellate order could be recovered in a fresh suit notwithstanding Section 16 of Regulation III of 1793.

Analysis: Section 16 barred the reopening of the same cause or the same question already heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, but it did not extend to a case where later events had altered the character of the controversy. Money recovered under a decree cannot be retained once that decree has been reversed or superseded, because the original decree ceases to furnish a valid foundation for the payment. The appellate order in council was intended to govern the rights and liabilities of the parties, and the earlier decrees under which the sums were paid were subordinate to, and displaced by, that order.

Conclusion: The suit for restitution of the sums paid under the earlier decrees was maintainable, and the objection based on Section 16 of Regulation III of 1793 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Money paid under a decree that is later reversed or superseded is recoverable, and a bar against re-litigation of the same matter does not apply where subsequent events have changed the issue to be decided.

---