Tromans

The facts in this case are set forth in the opinion given upon a former appeal. (Tromans v. Mahlman, 92 Cal. 1 .) It was then held that the evidence was insufficient to show an actual residence upon the premises at the time of filing the declaration of homestead, and, consequently, that the premises were not impressed with the attributes of a homestead; and the case was remanded for a new trial. Upon that trial, from which the present appeal is taken, the evidence before the court was substantially the same as upon the former trial, and the decision of the court thereon in favor of the plaintiff was by necessary implication a *647 decision that the evidence did not show such actual residence on the premises; and, under the decision of this court upon the former appeal, the superior court was fully justified in making this finding.

The only respect in which it is claimed by the appellants that the evidence herein differed from that at the former trial to such an extent as to authorize a different conclusion is that Mrs. Mahlman testified that at the time she went to the premises on the 21st of August, 1883, it was her intention to remain there and occupy the house continuously,…