An interesting recent decision in Minnesota, Schendel v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., raises two important questions concerning the effect to be given in one state of the Union to a judgment rendered in the courts of another. An action was brought in Minnesota by a special administrator, there appointed, to recover damages for the death of his decedent. The accident resulting in death had occurred in Iowa while the decedent, it was claimed, was engaged in inter-state commerce, so as to bring the claim within the federal statute. To this Minnesota action the defendant set up that the domiciliary administrator of this decedent had recovered a judgment for the same cause of action against the defendant in Iowa, and that the judgment had been paid. The plaintiff had a verdict in the trial court, and the supreme court of Minnesota ordered a new trial. The two questions of interest are: (1) Was there such "privity" between the Iowa and Minnesota representatives of this decedent that a judgment in a suit by one representative affected the claim, based on the same subject matter, asserted by another representative; (2) What effect, in the Minnesota action, was to be given the fact, alleged by the plaintiff, that the judgment in the Iowa suit was obtained by fraud on the part of the defendant?