Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/016wn2d/016wn2d0607.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:14:09+00:00

Document:
APPEAL AND ERROR - SUBSEQUENT APPEALS - FORMER DECISION AS LAW OF CASE. Questions determined on appeal or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal in the same case.
 SAME. Where, on appeal from that part of a decree of annulment which awarded a money judgment, the supreme court assumed jurisdiction of the whole case, set aside the decree of annulment as against public policy and void, and remanded the case to the superior court, such rulings became the law of the case and cannot be further considered.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Todd, J., entered March 13, 1941, upon findings, dismissing an action for divorce, after a trial on the merits to the court. Affirmed.
Chas. A. Cave and James G. Mulroy, for appellant.
Tworoger, Horr & Franco (Albert Hanan, of counsel), for respondent.
«1» Reported in 134 P. (2d) 467.
 See 3 Am. Jur. 541.
Feb. 1943] Opinion Per Simpson, C.J.
that she was entitled to separate maintenance; that the defendant had failed to sustain the allegations of his cross-complaint; and that the complaint of the plaintiff and the cross-complaint of the defendant should be dismissed. An order of dismissal was entered accordingly, and the defendant appealed.
He assigns as error that "The trial court had no jurisdiction to enter any order with reference to the decree of annulment."
". . . will therefore be set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this ruling."
Co., 62 Wash. 436, 113 Pac. 1104; Perrault v. Emporium Department Store Co., 83 Wash. 578, 145 Pac. 438; Collins v. Terminal Transfer Co., 98 Wash. 597, 168 Pac. 174; McGill v. Baker, 157 Wash. 414, 288 Pac. 1062; Fleming v. Buerkli, 164 Wash. 136, 1 P. (2d) 915; Peabody v. Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co., 172 Wash. 313, 20 P. (2d) 15; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 179 Wash. 123, 35 P. (2d) 1090; Miller v. Sisters of St. Francis, 5 Wn. (2d) 204, 105 P. (2d) 32.
"All the issues in the case were determined upon the former appeal, and a judgment was directed, and was entered as directed, without further evidence. This appeal does not present any new question raised by reason of the entry of the directed judgment. It simply presents questions which should have been, or were raised upon the other appeal, which, as we have seen above, may not be done. We are satisfied there is no merit in any of the questions presented now; but in view of the rule above stated, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them."
decision of the question in the first appeal became the law of the case and cannot be further considered.
We therefore hold that the order of dismissal entered by the trial court was proper and complied with the instructions of this court.
ROBINSON, BEALS, BLAKE, and GRADY, JJ., concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.