But, as it appears that for many years the United States has employed and paid a special attorney to represent the Pueblo Indians and look after their interests, our answer is made with the qualification that, if the decree was rendered in a suit begun and prosecuted by the special attorney so employed and paid, we think the United States is as effectually concluded as if it …

"The conclusive effect of judgments respecting the same cause of action and between the same parties rests upon the just and expedient axiom that it is for the interest of the community that a limit should be opposed to the continuance of litigation, and that the same cause of action should not be brought twice to a final determination.** Parties in that connection include …

Lamb, Ricketts & Wilson, for appellants: The title of Nora M. Jones was litigated by Moore & Jones in the name of Robert A. Moore and Charles E. Hanson, and she is bound by the decree of this court in the former case

—"it was held that whenever it should appear that the real party in a suit was not a party to the record, but prosecuted or defended the suit in the name of a nominal party, he would be concluded" by the judgment as effectually as if he had been a party to the record.

[BOOK] Federal Indian Law

[BOOK] Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah

[BOOK] Reports of Civil and Criminal Cases Decided by the Court of Appeals of …

[BOOK] The Lawyers Reports Annotated