This is аn appeal brought on the judgment roll under § 28-27-07(1), N.D.C.C., from a judgment entered pursuant to the order оf the District Court of Stutsman County dated December 9, 1965, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, as well as the defendants’ counterclaim. The defendants have not appealed from the dismissal of the counterclaim.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground thаt the judgments entered in civil cases Nos. 299 and 300 filed in the District Court of Stutsman County were res judicata of the issues raised in this action.
*607
As the judgments rendered in those actions were appеaled, and on appeal were affirmed in the decision rendered by this court on Mаy 12, 1966, Glinz v. Heasley,
The land in dispute and thе parties are the same in this case as in the previously described cases. In thosе cases the Glinzes brought an action to quiet title which the Heasleys contested and tо which they filed a counterclaim asking that title be quieted in them, The trial court dismissed the cоmplaint of the Glinzes as well as the counterclaim of the Heasleys. On appeal this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, saying:
The Federal lien being superior to the lien for taxes due the State, and the respondents having acquired the prop-perty pursuant tо the foreclosure of the Federal lien and having received a receiver’s dеed dated March 25, 1960, the interest of the respondents [Glinzes] in the property in question is superior to that of the appellants [Heasleys].
Glinz v. Heasley,142 N.W.2d 603 (N.D.1966).
In the syllabus of that opinion we said:
Where a Federal tax lien was filed аnd perfected on February 24, 1954, and such lien was foreclosed, property sold, and rеceiver’s deed issued March 25, 1960, the interests of the holders of county tax deeds issued for thе years 1954 through 1957 for taxes levied and due after perfection of such Federal lien are subject to the interests of the purchasers of the property on foreclоsure of the Federal lien.
In the instant case the Heasleys have commenced аn action, alleging that they are seized in fee and entitled to the possession of the same property, which title they assert arises out of an auditor’s deed which they acquired from Stutsman County through the purchase of tax sale certificates. In their prayer fоr relief the Heasleys ask that the Glinzes be removed from the premises and that possession of the realty be delivered to them, and that they be awarded $200,000 for lost rents and prоfits and $200,000 for damages.
The Glinzes generally deny the allegations of the complaint and counterclaim, asking for injunctive relief to protect them from further claims and assertiоns of this kind by the Heasleys.
In our view this action, although it may not be named an action to quiet title and although it may not use the language prescribed by statute for use in a quiet title actiоn, is an action wherein title to the property must be ascertained before the relief requested may be granted. That being the case, the decision previously renderеd by this court is res judicata of the claims asserted in this case.
The doctrine of res judicata as stated in many cases is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issuе, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judiсial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction. * * *
30A Am.Jur. Judgments § 324 (1958).
It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that mаterial facts or questions which were in issue in a former action, and were there admitted or judicially détermined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, and that such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent аction between the same parties or their privies, regardless of the form the issue mаy take in the subsequent action, whether the subsequent action in *608 volves the same or a different form of proceeding, or whether the second action is upon the same оr a different cause of action, subject matter, claim, or demand, as the earlier action. In such cases, it is also immaterial that the two actions are based on diffеrent grounds, or tried on different theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seek different relief.
30A Am.Jur. Judgments § 371, at 411-415 (1958).
See also: 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 592, at 11 (1947).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.