Whelan

This case has been here in various forms, several times: Brickell v. Batchelder, 62 Cal. 623 ; Batchelder v. Brickell, 75 Cal. 373 , 17 Pac. 441 ; Batchelder v. Baker, 79 Cal. 266 , 21 Pac. 754 ; and Baker v. Brickell, 87 Cal. 329 , 25 Pac. 489, 1067 . The case at bar must be affirmed upon the authority of the case last above mentioned—87 Cal. 329, 25 Pac. 489, 1067 . That case, it is true, was decided upon its merits, after a full trial, while in the ease at bar judgment was rendered for defendants upon the sustaining of a demurrer to the complaint. There is an effort here to give the case a somewhat different phase, but it readily appears upon the face of the complaint that the material facts stated are the same as those passed upon in Baker v. Brickell. After a careful consideration of the briefs of counsel for appellants, we are satisfied that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and we do.not think that further discussion of the case is necessary.

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: De Haven, J.; Fitzgerald, J.