Denio v. Huntington Beach (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 424, involved a contract of employment calling for the payment of percentages of certain royalties received by the defendant. The Denio court explained that the action "involved the same contract and the same general facts" as those set forth in a prior published opinion. (Denio, supra, 74 Cal.App.2d at p. 425.) In the prior action, it was held "that the contract of employment was valid and binding upon the defendant city, that the plaintiffs were wrongfully discharged by the defendant, that payment made to the city under a certain other contract are royalty payments within the meaning of the contract of employment, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the compensation specified in the contract of employment." (Ibid.) The action before the Denio court involved "the plaintiffs' claim, under the same contract of employment, to percentages of such royalty payments subsequently received by the city." (Id. at p. 426.) However, the defendant raised new issues, such as "a frustration of the object of the contract of employment; that the contract of employment was ultra vires in certain respects; and that there was a failure of consideration," among other things. (Id. at p. 427.) In concluding that the defendant was estopped from raising some of the new issues, the Denio court explained: "It would be inconsistent in this case to admit evidence and to permit a decision which would have the effect of destroying a contract for compensation, the validity and binding effect of which, and the right to recover compensation under which, was specifically upheld in the former action." The court went on to say, "Nor do we think the cause of action herein is so essentially different, in a sense material here, from that set forth in the former action as to avoid the effect of the usual rule against the splitting of defenses." (Denio, supra, 74 Cal.App.2d at p. 430.)