(After stating the foregoing facts.) While there is much in the petition which would be germane to a motion for a rehearing in the previous decision of this court in Lankford v. Holton, 195 Ga. 317, 333-335 (24 S. E. 2d, 292), yet in that case it was held: “The findings of the examiner, both as to fact and law, that title to the three and one-half tracts was in Mrs. Holton and the intervenors, are sustained;” and also held: “If she [Mrs. Lankford] relied on equitable title or interest by reason of the settlement agreement and a claimed breach of the option contract, her claim is barred by acquiescence in the breach and by abandonment of any claim thereunder and by laches.”

That Mrs. Lankford has no title to the property, either legal or equitable, was previously determined in the above-referred-to land-registration case. Having been so settled by this court, the question can not be relitigated either directly or indirectly in another action. Lankford v. Holton, 196 Ga. 631 (27 S. E. 2d, 310). Accordingly, the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition in the instant case.

Judgment affirmed.