In re Shierman's Estate

• Decision Date: 05 January 1937
• Docket Number: 29836.
• Citation: 270 N.W. 841,132 Neb. 45
• Parties: IN RE SHIERMAN'S ESTATE. v. SHEA. SHIERMAN ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

270 N.W. 841

132 Neb. 45

IN RE SHIERMAN'S ESTATE.

SHIERMAN ET AL. v. SHEA.

No. 29836.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

January 5, 1937

Syllabus by the Court.

" When this court upon appeal determines the law of the case the trial court is bound thereby, and its judgment accordingly will not under any ordinary conditions be disturbed upon another appeal." Home Savings Bank v Shallenberger, 100 Neb. 113, 158 N.W. 455.

Appeal from District Court, Adams County; Blackledge, Judge.

Proceeding in the matter of the estate of John W. Shierman, deceased involving a controversy between William Francis Shierman and another, by R. D. Gaston, their next friend, and Nettie A. Shea. From an adverse judgment, Nettie A. Shea appeals.

Affirmed.

J. E. Willits, of Hastings, for appellant.

McNeny & Sprague, of Red Cloud, for appellees.

Heard before GOSS, C. J., ROSE, EBERLY, DAY, PAINE, and CARTER, JJ., and CHAPPELL, District Judge.

CHAPPELL, District Judge.

The complete history of this case and reversal thereof with directions appears in our former opinion. In re Estate of Shierman, 129 Neb. 230, 261 N.W. 155.A motion for rehearing having been overruled, the mandate issued and the trial court entered judgment thereon. Appellee, defendant herein, who is now appellant in this court, filed a motion for new trial which was overruled. Later a motion was filed to set aside the order overruling the motion for new trial and the trial court permitted alleged newly discovered evidence to be adduced in support of the motion. From the overruling of the motion for a new trial and the motion to set aside the order overruling it, an appeal is taken.

Many interesting propositions of law are discussed by appellant's counsel in his brief and argument to this court, but from a careful reading of the record and the former opinion we decide that if the trial court followed the mandate they are all answered.

A study of the alleged newly discovered evidence discloses it is not such; that there has been no change in the circumstances; no new question has presented itself; no cogent reason appears which would require a further hearing or different order or judgment than that required by the mandate to do justice and equity between the parties. Regouby v. Dawson County Irrigation Co., 128 Neb. 531, 259 N.W. 365.

All matters now contended for by this appellant were distinctly presented by the issues and the evidence and we believe...