'Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Idaho.

As a plea in bar to the complaint of plaintiff, the defendant says: “That at a term of the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho, Northern division, which was held in the year 1895, the predecessors in interest, to wit, Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley, under whom the above-named plaintiff claims in the above-entitled action, exhibited their bill of complaint in this honorable court against this defendant, claiming to be the owners of the Kirby fraction lode mining claim, the same property mentioned and describes! in the plaintiff’s bill of complaint in this action, and alleging that this defendant claimed an estate or interest therein adverse to the said Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley, and to their title' to the said Kirby fraction lode mining claim; and that this defendant had applied for a United States patent upon the Shoshone lode mining claim, which overlapped and conflicted with the said Kirby fraction lode mining claim, and that the said Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley had filed an adverse in the United States land office against the said application for patent so made by this defendant as aforesaid, and that the said aforementioned suit was brought by the said Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley against this defendant in support of said adverse claim. This defendant thereupon filed its answer, denying that the said Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley were the owners of the Kirby fraction lode mining claim so claimed by them as aforesaid, or that the said Kirby, fraction lode mining claim had any legal existence, or was a valid lode mining claim, and alleging that • this defendant, the Shoshone Mining Company, was the owner of the land and premises then claimed by the said Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley as the Kirby fraction lode mining claim, and that the said land and premises were a part of the said Shoshone mining claim, the property of this defendant. To this answer the said Rutter and Bradley filed their replication, and the cause was at issue in the aforesaid court. That, prior to the filing of the said answer by this defendant, the defendant had filed a demurrer to the bill of complaint so filed by the said Rutter and Bradley as aforesaid, alleging, among other grounds of demurrer, that it did not appear from the said bill of complaint that the cause was one of which the said court had jurisdiction, which said demurrer was overruled by the said court, and proper bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court was settled. That thereupon the cause proceeded to trial upon the issues made by the complaint, answer, and replication aforesaid, in which said suit a final judgment had been entered in favor of this defendant, and against the said Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley, dismissing said action, because the said circuit court had no jurisdiction thereof. That said judgment is final, and no appeal may be had therefrom. That hy virtue of the law no other suit may he maintained against this defendant by or on behalf of any person claiming under ilu* title of the Kirby fraction lode mining claim. That tlie said final judgment: so entered as aforesaid is a final determination, and conclusive of. the right to tlie land and premises described in the complaint in this action as the Kirby fraction lode mining claim, as between the plaintiff in this action and this defendant. * * * This defendant further says that at a term of the district court of tlie First judicial district of the state of Idaho, in and for Shoshone county, which was held in tlie year 1800, the said present, defendant commenced a suit hy filing a complaint in tlie said court against Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley, the predecessors in interest as tlie owners or claimants of the Kirby fraction lode mining claim, mentioned and described in tlie complaint in this action, to which complaint tlie said Royal ,T. Rutter and F. W. Bradley filed their answer, and issue was joined hy said complaint and answer between this defendant and (lie said Royal ,T. Rutter and F. W. Bradley. That said cause was removed hy tlie said defendants. Rutter and Bradley, to the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho, Northern division, on tlie grounds that the said cause was one of which the said circuit, court had jurisdiction. That tlie said bond proceedings had for that purpose has been remanded by tlie said United States circuit court to tlie said district court of the First judicial district of the state of Idaho, in and for Shoshone county, and is now pending and undetermined therein. That said defendant claimed the land and premises in said last-mentioned action as a part of the Ibex lode mining claim, of which this defendant is, and at all times was, the owner. That the said Royal J. Rutter a'nd if. W. Bradley claimed that portion of tlie Kirby fraction lode mining claim which conflicted with the said Ibex lode mining claim as the Kirby fraction lode mining claim. That the conflict area between the said Kirby fraction lode claim and the Ibex lode mining claims is described hy metes and hounds as follows: * * *. That: both tlie said Shoshone lode mining claim and the ibex lode mining claim are owned hy this defendant, tlie Shoshone mining company. That the said last-named cause is now pending and undetermined, and is of record in the said district court of the First judicial •district of the state of Idaho in and for Shoshone county, — all of which several matters and things this defendant doth aver, and pleads tlie said former hill, demurrer, answer, replication, judgment, and several proceedings in tlie first of tlie above mentioned and set forth actions in bar to the said plaintiff’s present bill, and pleads the said former complaint, answer, and several proceedings in tlie said second above mentioned and described actions in bar to tlie said plaintiff's present bill, and demands judgment of this honorable court whether it shall he put to make any further or other answer thereto, and prays to be hence dismissed, with its costs and charges in tliis behalf sustained.”