Foudray v. Foudray

• Citation: 54 Ind.App. 164,101 N.E. 679
• Decision Date: 23 April 1913
• Docket Number: No. 8,173.,8,173.
• Parties: FOUDRAY et al. v. FOUDRAY et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

54 Ind.App. 164

101 N.E. 679

FOUDRAY et al.

v.FOUDRAY et al.

No. 8,173.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

April 23, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Charles Remster, Judge.

Action by Livingston D. Foudray and others against John S. Foudray and others. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

*679George W. Galvin, of Indianapolis, for appellants. William N. Harding, Alfred R. Hovey, and Omer W. Newman, all of Indianapolis, for appellees.

SHEA, J.

This is the second appeal of this case between the same parties and upon the same facts. See Foudray et al. v. Foudray et al., 44 Ind. App. 444.

All the vital questions presented under the issues of this cause were decided in the former appeal, so that it must remain as the law of the case. It has been uniformly *680held in this state that the judgment upon appeal rules the case on a subsequent appeal involving the same questions. James v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 148 Ind. 615, 48 N. E. 222;Brunsen v. Henry, 152 Ind. 310, 312, 52 N. E. 407;Hatfield v. Cummings, 152 Ind. 537, 538, 53 N. E. 761;Shirk v. Lingeman, 26 Ind. App. 630, 59 N. E. 941;Stevens v. Templeton, 174 Ind. 129, 91 N. E. 563;Rosenthal v. Rambo, 165 Ind. 584, 76 N. E. 404, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678;Quick v. Brenner, 101 Ind. 230. The cause was remanded, with instructions to the lower court to restate its conclusions of law with respect to the conclusion that Martha E. Clark had a right to have her title quieted as to her right to convey in fee simple, and this the court below has done.

Many questions are argued in the elaborate brief filed by appellants' learned counsel; but it is the opinion of this court that the law as heretofore stated must be held to be the law of the case.

Judgment affirmed.