Wilson v. Rodgers, 73--282
| Citation | 256 Ark. 276,507 S.W.2d 508 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--282,73--282 |
| Parties | J. B. WILSON, Appellant, v. Joan RODGERS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Milton G. Robinson, Stuttgart, for appellant.
Wm. M. Moorhead of Macom, Moorhead & Green, Stuttgart, for appellees.
This is the third appeal in a suit to determine whether certain real property was owned by two brothers as partners or by only one brother individually. Upon the second appeal it did not appear that the chancellor had considered the entire record in deciding disputed issues of fact. We found the evidence to be so evenly balanced that we could not say where the preponderance lay. We therefore remanded the case for the chancellor's decision upon that point, on the entire record but without additional testimony. Wilson v. Rodgers, 254 Ark. 487, S.W.2d 484 (1973).
Pursuant to our mandate the chancellor re-examined the issues and concluded that the preponderance of the evidence favors the appellees. Counsel for the appellant now asks us to reconsider all the arguments that were presented upon the second appeal. We must decline that invitation. No principle is more firmly settled by our decisions than the rule that the matters decided upon one appeal become the law of the case and govern this court upon a second appeal, even though we might be inclined to say that we were wrong in the first instance. International Harvester Co. v. Burks Motors, 252 Ark. 816, 481 S.W.2d 351 (1972). It follows that the chancellor's decision is now conclusive upon the only issue that was left open by our opinion upon the second appeal. That ends the litigation.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potter v. Easley
...first appeal is the law of the case, which we would not be at liberty to modify even if we now thought it erroneous. Wilson v. Rodgers, 256 Ark. 276, 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); United States Annuity & Life Ins. Co. v. Peak, 129 Ark. 43, 195 S.W. 392, 1 A.L.R. 1259 (1917); Taliaferro v. Barnett,......
-
Ferguson v. Green
...Phillips, 243 Ark. 809, 422 S.W.2d 418; M. L. Sigmon Forest Products, Inc. v. Scroggins, 250 Ark. 385, 465 S.W.2d 673; Wilson v. Rodgers, 256 Ark. 276, 507 S.W.2d 508; Anderson v. McClanahan, 229 Ark. 239, 314 S.W.2d 222; Collie v. Coleman, 226 Ark. 692, 292 S.W.2d 80; Meyers v. Meyers, 214......
-
Love v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...of practice we are bound by the opinion on the first appeal, even though we may now think it to have been wrong. Wilson v. Rodgers, 256 Ark. 276, 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); International Harvester Co. v. Burks Motors, 252 Ark. 816, 481 S.W.2d 351 (1972); Farmers Cooperative Assn. v. Phillips, 2......
-
Carter v. Bush
...rulings which have been affirmed or become final are res judicata and as such comprise the law of the case. See Wilson v. Rodgers, 256 Ark. 276, 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); International Harvester Co. v. Burks Motors, Inc., 252 Ark. 816, 481 S.W.2d 351 (1972); Miller Lumber Co. v. Floyd, 169 Ark......