
    Schenck and another, Respondents, vs. Sterling Engineering & Construction Company, Appellant.
    
      November 20
    
    December 9, 1913.
    
    Res judicata: Former adjudication: Appeal: Double costs.
    
    1. The judgment of this court upon appeal in a former action between the same parties, wherein the same questions were litigated and determined, is conclusive upon the parties in this action.
    2. Double costs under sec. 2951, Stats., are not allowed to respondents in this case, although the parties are held to be concluded by a former judgment of this court.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit' court for Milwaukee county: Oscar M. Eritz, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This action was brought by the respondents to recover commission for the alleged sale of certain real estate belonging to appellant. Shortly after the commencement of respondents’ action one Franklin H. Feasley commenced an action against the appellant in the same court to recover commission for the alleged sale of the same property. The appellant answered in each of the actions denying liability, and in the instant action set up in its answer the commencement of the action by Franklin H. Feasley, and after examination under sec. 4096, Stats., a motion was made asking that Frarilclin H. Feasley be made a party to this action and tbat' be be restrained from prosecuting his action separately and apart from this action, and that the whole controversy be tried in one trial to avoid a multiplicity of actions. The motion -was denied. The appellant appealed, assigning error in denial of motion to make Feasley a party to this action and in refusal to perpetually restrain him from prosecuting his action separately and apart from this action.
    
      C. J. Davelaar, for the appellant.
    
      H. L. Kellogg, for the respondents Schenck and Hayward.
    
    Eor the respondent' Franklin H. Feasley there was a brief by Perry, Morton & Kroesing, and oral argument by George E. Morton.
    
   KeewiN, J.

The same questions presented between the same parties here were litigated and determined in a former action and disposed of on a former appeal in this court. Schenck v. Sterling E. &. C. Co. 151 Wis. 266, 138 N. W. 637, 769. The appellant contends that a different question is presented on this appeal. But an examination of the record shows that the issues are the same. The parties are therefore concluded by the judgment of this court on the former appeal. State ex rel. Kurath v. Ludwig, 146 Wis. 385, 132 N. W. 130; Kiley v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 142 Wis. 154, 125 N. W. 464; Jeffery v. Osborne, 145 Wis. 351, 129 N. W. 931; West v. Bayfield M. Co. 149 Wis. 145, 135 N. W. 478; Roach v. Sanborn L. Co. 140 Wis. 435, 122 N. W. 1020; Twentieth Century Co. v. Quilling, 136 Wis. 481, 117 N. W. 1007; Case v. Hoffman, 100 Wis. 314, 75 N. W. 945.

The respondents insist that double costs under sec. 2951, Stats., should be allowed them. We are not inclined, however, to allow double costs or anything further than the usual costs on affirmance.

By the Court. — The order appealed from is affirmed.  