In an action for a trespass upon a mining claim, where the complaint avers that defendants are working upon and extracting the mineral from the claim, and prays for a perpetual injunction, and the answer admits the entry and work and takes issue upon the title; if a jury to whom the issue of title is submitted find in favor of the plaintiffs, it is the duty of the Court to decree the equitable relief sought, and enjoin defendants from future trespasses.

The complaint charged that defendants had wrongfully entered upon a tract of mining ground (described by metes and bounds) owned by the plaintiffs, and had extracted therefrom gold-bearing earth of the value of $1,000, and that they threatened to continue their wrongful acts, and prayed for damages in the sum of $1,000, and for a perpetual injunction. The answer set up title in defendants to a specific portion of the tract claimed by plaintiffs, and denied that they had worked upon any other portion than that to which they thus asserted title.

The jury under a general submission found “ a verdict in favor of plaintiffs with one dollar damagesMd, that the verdict decided the question of title in favor of plaintiffs, and that upon it they were entitled to a decree perpetually enjoining defendants from working upon the ground claimed in the complaint ; that this equitable relief was a matter of right, the denial of which by the District Court was error.

The Court in the case above cited having instructed the jury that, if they found that plaintiffs were entitled to the mining ground, they must find a verdict for $1,000 damages upon the admissions of the answer: held, that because the jury brought in a verdict for one instead of one thousand dollars’ damages, it was not therefore to be concluded, in direct opposition to their general verdict, that they did not find the title in the plaintiffs. The damages being admitted by the pleadings were not in issue, and the verdict in that respect was immaterial.

It is no reason for refusing a perpetual injuction in an action of trespass in which the title has been litigated, that' defendants will thereby be precluded from asserting their title in any other form of action. When there has been a fair trial of an issue of fact, Courts give the verdict and judgment a conclusive effect, and will not permit the parties to relitigate the same matter in another suit.

Where in an action of trespass the jury find generally “for the plaintiffs,” it is a finding upon all the issues raised by the pleadings material to a recovery by the plaintiffs, and concludes the parties upon a question of title where it was distinctly put in issue.

Under our code of practice to ascertain what was in fact determined by the findings or verdict, we must look solely to the material facts put in issue by the pleadings, and not to the form of the action.

The mere fact that the pleader has used terms of expression in stating Ms case which were under the old system of practice used in particular kinds of action, will not necessarily give character to, or determine the effect or meaning of, the verdict.