after the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota has interpreted the constitutional provision quoted, and the Minnesota legislation in pursuance thereof, to the effect that a suit to enforce stockholders’ liability must be brought in one of the -District Courts of Minnesota and must be in the nature of a suit in equity, prosecuted by, or on behalf of, all the creditors against the corporation and all the .stockholders. Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543; Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 173, 14 N. W. 799; In re Martin’s Estate, 56. Minn. 420, 57 N. W. 1065. These cases hold that under the Minnesota constitutional provision the stockholders are liable as a-body-to the creditors as a body, the.object being to create-a fun'd to the extent of such liability for the benefit of all the cred*279itors. A suit by a single creditor, therefore, against the stockholders would not lie, for the fund might be exhausted in favor of a single creditor. A suit by all the creditors, or by a„ single creditor on behalf of all the creditors, against a single stockholder would not lie, for the stockholder thus sued might be compelled to contribute more than his just proportion of the amount remaining due. The suit must be in the nature of a general settlement wherein the right of each creditor may be settled, the liability of each stockholder determined, the fund resulting being thereby ratably contributed by stockholders, and ratably distributed among creditors.
Whatever might have been our ruling, harl the questions herein presented come to us at first instance, it is plain to us that the Wisconsin courts have in the suit set forth in the bill ruled, as a matter either of law or of fact, that in view of the Minnesota constitution and statutes, as interpreted by the Minnesota courts, appellant could not enforce liability against the appellee in any court outside the appropriate District Courts of Minnesota, or in any suit to which the corporation, the stockholders and the creditors were not parties. The judgment entered in the Wisconsin state court, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, is not shown to have been one of non-suit. Its effect, under the findings, is one of dismissal on the merits. The judgment thus rendered, whether of law or of fact, was by a validly constituted court, having jurisdiction of the cause. The parties in that suit were the same as the parties in this suit. The causes of action in the two suits were identical, and the points passed upon were the same. Questions thus determined, whether they be questions of law or of fact, become, as between the same parties respecting the same subject matter, the law and.the fact of the controversy; and cannot afterwards be litigated by new proceedings, either before the same or any other tribunal. This is 'applicable to federal courts, as well as to state courts; for although the federal courts and the state courts are organized under distinct governmental authority, their judgments are not to be treated as foreign judgments, but as the judgments of concurrent courts, giving to each the full faith and credit that is to be accorded to courts of record within the state. Tioga Railroad Company v. Blossburg Railroad Company, 20 Wall. 137, 22 L. Ed. 331. The demurrer was rightly sustained and the decree below must be affirmed.,