Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.

Stacy, J. This case was before us at a former term, 186 N. C., 773. Tbe first appeal was from a judgment of nonsuit, entered on motion of tbe defendant at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, and this was reversed. We are not now permitted to review any question which was then decided, as a party who loses in this Court may not have tbe case reheard by a second appeal. Holland v. R. R., 143 N. C., 435. Where a judgment of nonsuit has been reversed and, on a second trial, tbe plaintiff’s evidence is substantially tbe same as it was on tbe first bearing, tbe cause should be submitted to tbe jury, as tbe former decision has become tbe law of tbe case so far as tbe question of nonsuit is concerned. Clark v. Sweaney, 176 N. C., 529. “A decision by tbe Supreme Court on a prior appeal constitutes the law of tbe case, both in subsequent proceedings in tbe trial court and on a subsequent appeal.” Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65. To like effect are numerous decisions, among which may be mentioned: Nobles v. Davenport, 185 N. C., 162; Public-Service Co. v. Power Co., 181 N. C., 356; Hospital v. R. R., 157 N. C., 460. Defendant’s chief assignment of error, or the one most strongly urged on the argument and in its brief, is the exception addressed to the refusal of the court to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. Under the authorities above cited, our former ruling *416 on this question bas become the law of the case as there is no material difference between thé evidence appearing on the previous record and the evidence appearing on the present record. Gerock v. Tel. Co., 147 N. C., 1. The remaining exceptions are not sufficient to warrant another hearing. The verdict and judgment will be upheld. No error.