¶1 This is the “same candle blown out in the original action,” Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N. C., 497, 181 S. E., 562, “and lighted again in the present action.” C. S., 415; Loan Co. v. Warren, 204 N. C., 50, 167 S. E., 494; Motsinger v. Hauser, 195 N. C., 483, 142 S. E., 589.
¶2 As the facts found by the trial court are supported by the record, Batson v. Laundry Co., 209 N. C., 223, 183 S. E., 413, the judgment will be affirmed on authority of Hampton v. Spinning Co., 198 N. C., 235, 151 S. E., 266, where it was said tbat “if upon the trial of the new action, upon its merits, ... it appears to the trial court, and is found by such court as a fact, tbat the second suit is based upon substantially identical allegation and substantially identical evidence, and tbat the merits of the second cause are identically the same, thereupon the trial court should bold tbat the judgment in the first action was a bar or res adjudicata, and thus end that particular litigation.” The same rule was restated and followed in Batson v. Laundry Co., 206 N. C., 371, 174 S. E., 90.
¶3 Affirmed.