Davisson v. Bank

• Decision Date: 21 December 1911
• Citation: 16 N.M. 689,120 P. 304
• Parties: DAVISSONv.CITIZENS' NAT. BANK.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

16 N.M. 689

120 P. 304

DAVISSON

v.CITIZENS' NAT. BANK.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Dec. 21, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; before Chief Justice Pope.

Action by George A. Davisson against the Citizens' National Bank and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant bank appeals. Affirmed.

A decision in a prior appeal is the law of the case and upon a subsequent appeal nothing is before the court for revision but the proceedings subsequent to the mandate.

This cause of action was before this court upon practically the same record, and upon the former hearing the case was reversed, with instructions to the lower court to reinstate the cause and proceed in accordance with the views therein expressed. 15 N. M. 680, 113 Pac. 598. Upon the second trial of the cause in the court below, no new pleadings or amendments to the pleadings were made, and no additional evidence was introduced. The court below, in accordance with the mandate of this court, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment for the appellees, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

William C. Reid and James M. Hervey, for appellant. Ed S. Gibbany and W. A. Dunn, for appellees.

ROBERTS, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Upon this second appeal we are limited to a consideration of but one question, viz., Did the lower court reach its final decree in due pursuance of the previous opinion and mandate of this court? We find that it did.

Appellant has presented, as a new proposition in this case, the point that neither the complaint of Davisson nor the cross-complaint of Mrs. Owens states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the appellant bank; but we are precluded from a consideration of this proposition on this appeal. This question could have been raised upon the former appeal. It is the settled law in New Mexico, as well as in the Supreme Court of the United States, that a decision in a prior appeal is the law of the case, and that upon a subsequent appeal nothing is before the court for revision but the proceedings subsequent to the mandate. United States v. Camou, 184 U. S. 572, 22 Sup. Ct. 515, 46 L. Ed. 694; Barnett v. Barnett, 9 N. M. 205, 50 Pac. 337; Crary v. Field, 10 N. M. 257, 61 Pac. 118. This doctrine appears also to be supported by practically all of the states of the Union, with the possible exception of Missouri, Indiana, and Nebraska. A very instructive...