
    [No. 4929.]
    STEPHEN D. HOSMER v. WILLIAM T. WALLACE, R. R. WALLACE and R. B. WALLACE.
    When Judgment is a Bab.—A judgment in favor of the defendant, in an action brought by one who claims to have been a pre-emptor, to have the patentee, whose right he contested in the land office, declared his trustee, is,a bar to another action between the same parties, when no new facts have arisen which change the legal relations of the parties.
    Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Clara,
    The plaintiff brought an action to have the defendants, who were the grantees of one who had received from the United States a patent for certain lands, declared his trustees. Judgment for the defendants was affirmed, on appeal to this court. (See Hosmer v. Wallace, 47 Cal. 461.) The plaintiff afterwards commenced this suit for the same cause of action. The court held the former judgment to be a bar, and rendered judgment for the defendants.
    The plaintiff appealed.
    
      Moore, Delmas, Laine & Leib, for the Appellant.
    
      Nourse & Phelps, for the Respondents.
   By the Court:

In Rutledge v. Murphy (supra, p. 388), it was held that the Commissioner of the General Land Office and Secretary of the Interior were correct in their view of the law applicable to the facts claimed to have been proved before the local land officers. We see no reason to change our opinion in respect to the rule there announced, and the complaint in the present action contains a statement of no facts not alleged in the complaint in the former action between the same parties, which can affect their legal relations. # The former judgment was therefore a bar to the prosecution of the present suit.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace, being disqualified, took no part in the decision.  