This is an appeal from a judgment quieting the title of each of four plaintiffs to an undivided one-fifth interest in forty acres of land in Santa Clara County, California, described as the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 10, township 8 south, range 2 west, M. D. M., hereinafter referred to as Parcel “A.” It is contended by the defendants upon this appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings, and that the trial court erred in not ruling that another .action was pending at the commencement of this action and that this action should, therefore, have abated.

The facts necessary for an understanding of the relationship of the various parties are disclosed by documentary evidence, from which it appears:

It is true the record contains other evidence relied upon by appellants to show a contrary intention of the parties to the partition deeds, such as mortgages, etc., executed later by the successors of Garcin, in which the same general description is given, which was copied, evidently, from the deed in partition given by Rispaud to Garcin, but the most that can be said of this evidence is that the trial court might have resolved the doubt in favor of defendants as there were facts and circumstances in evidence which would have warranted a different conclusion from the one reached. However, we cannot say that the conclusion reached was an improper or unreasonable one from the record.

The court also found in favor of plaintiffs upon the issue of adverse possession, but it is not necessary to discuss this additional reason for the judgment entered.

As to the defense that another action was pending between the same parties, involving the same rights, the judgment-roll in the other action relied upon shows that said action was between other parties than those of record in the instant ease; nor do the parties in the prior case occupy the same relative positions as those in the instant case, that is to say, the parties in the prior case are not in privity with all the parties herein; also, the issues in the two cases are not identical. In the former action, the predecessor in interest of defendants (Henry Rispaud) was a party plaintiff, whereas the successors in interest of Henry Rispaud are now made defendants by those who joined with him in bringing the former action. Furthermore, the former action was brought by a number of plaintiffs who claimed to own all the land involved in the present action, against four defendants, three of whom disclaimed any right in the land and the fourth answered, setting up that he held the record title to the land and wished to have it adjudged that he was the owner of a right of way across it, which seems to have been the extent of the claim of the predecessor in title of the defendants in the former case, while in the instant case, the defendants claim to own the legal and equitable title in fee to the land. The ruling of the court, therefore, upon this question was correct. (1 Cal. Jur. 31, sec. 11 et seq.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Preston, J., Richards, J., Shenk, J., Seawell, J., Curtis, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.