Case ID: mont_2/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Seevis, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Creighton, appellant, v. Hershfield, respondent.
    Effect of judgments of this couet until reversed. The opinion, of this court in affirming the judgment of the court below, in granting a new trial, is the law of the'case until it is reversed by a higher tribunal.
    
      Appeal from Third District, Lewis <md Cla/rhe County.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion, which has been delivered in this case on the first appeal. 1 Mon. 689. The judgment was rendered by Wade, J.
    Toole & Toole, for appellants.
    Chumaseeo & ChadwicK, for respondents.
    [The arguments of counsel are the same as those which are reported in the other hearings of this ease, and are omitted.]
   Seevis, J.

This action was originally commenced in the court below, June 21, 1870, and the appellants recovered judgment at a subsequent term. A new trial was granted afterward, at the December term, 1871, and the appellants appealed to' this court. At the August term, 1872, this court affirmed the judgment of the court below in granting a new trial, and the cause was remanded. 1 Mon. 639. Upon the second trial in the .court below judgment was rendered for the respondents, and this appeal was taken.

However much I might be inclined to differ from the opinion of this court, which has been referred to (1 Mon. 639), nevertheless that opinion is and must be the law of this case until it is reversed by a higher tribunal. Lick v. Diaz, 44 Cal. 479; Pond v. Davenport, id. 481. For this reason, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affi/rmed.