We see no necessity for this. The final judgment of this court was conclusive, not only as to the issues litigated, but likewise as to matters which were germane to the issues which might have been litigated therein. See McIntosh v. Board of Com'rs of McIntosh County, 179 Okla. 610, 67 P.2d 10; Factor Oil Co. v. Brydia, 184 Okla. 113, 85 P.2d 311; Cunningham v. Oklahoma City, supra; Haffner et al. v. Commerce Trust Co., 188 Okla. 532, 111 P.2d 479. Plaintiff's second proposition is that extraneous fraud was practiced upon the trial court.

This argument is based upon the rule that a judgment is res judicata of all questions which were or might have been presented in the action when the two actions involve the same cause of action. Prince v. Gosnell, 47 Okla. 570, 149 P. 1162; McIntosh v. Board of Com'rs, 179 Okla. 610, 67 P.2d 10. But while it is true that the title of plaintiff to his interest in the partnership cattle could have been litigated in the replevin action, it is clear that his interest in these cattle was at all times recognized by defendant, so that no dispute as to that interest existed between the parties. The replevin action was brought to establish plaintiff's ownership of the one-half interest of C.A. Brown in the partnership cattle, and title to the other property described in the bill of sale which plaintiff claimed had been made by C.A. Brown, and for no other purpose. Under such circumstances, we hold that the judgment in that case did not bar the subsequent assertion by plaintiff in this action, involving another and different cause of action, of his interest in the partnership cattle.