Case Name: Vaclav Hruby et al., appellants, v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, appellee
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1909-03-20
Citations: 83 Neb. 800
Docket Number: No. 15,483
Parties: Vaclav Hruby et al., appellants, v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 800–801

Head Matter:
Vaclav Hruby et al., appellants, v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, appellee.
Filed March 20, 1909.
No. 15,483.
Appeal: Law oj? Case. “When, the evidence is substantially the same as on a former appeal, the weight and effect to be given such evidence must be considered as foreclosed by the former decision on that point.” Me ad v. Tzschiick, 57 Neb. 615.
Appeal from the district court for Cuming county: Guy T. Graves, Judge.
Affirmed.
F. Doleml, for appellants.
A. H. Burnett, contra.

Opinion:
FAWCETTj J.
This case is here for the second time' ' A complete statement of the issues and review of the evidence may be found in the opinion of Holcomb, J., 70 Neb. 5. On the first trial in the district court there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. On appeal to this court the judgment was reversed and the case remanded' for the reason that the evidence was not sufficient to' sustain any verdict in favor of the plaintiff. On the second trial in the lower court the jury were directed to return a verdict in favor of the defendant, which was done, and judgment rendered thereon, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
It is conceded that the evidence in the record now before us is substantially the same as that which was presented on the former hearing. Appellants' main argument here is that our former decision was wrong. That question was fully discussed and considered on the application for a rehearing of the former decision, and decided adversely to plaintiff's contention. The evidence upon the former hearing seems to have received very full and careful consideration by the court, and we must decline to further review it.
The judgment of the district court is therefore
Affirmed.