Case Name: Herring, Respondent, vs. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1913-02-18
Citations: 152 Wis. 394
Docket Number: 
Parties: Herring, Respondent, vs. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, Appellant.
Judges: BabNES, J. I concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 394–398

Head Matter:
Herring, Respondent, vs. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, Appellant.
January 29
February 18, 1913.
Appeal: Law of the case: Decision on former appeal.
A decision of this court on a former appeal, that the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury upon all vital issues, is the law of the case and is binding when the same questions arise on a later appeal upon substantially the same evidence.
Winslow, C. J., and Babnes, J., dissent as to this case.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: Frane A. Ross, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Action for a personal injury. The case has been three times tried. The first trial resulted in a judgment of non-suit which was reversed on appeal. 139 Wis. 412,121 N. W. 170. The reversal was because of there being a fair basis in the evidence for a jury to find defendant guilty of want of ordinary care which proximately caused the injury and that defendant neither assumed the risk nor was guilty of contributory negligence. On the second trial there was a special verdict finding all the material issues in favor of the plaintiff. That was confirmed on motion for a new trial as regards there being conflicting reasonable inferences; but, it was thought the evidence so clearly preponderated.in defend ant’s favor on some material questions that it should be afforded another opportunity to try the case. On the third trial, resulting in the judgment, now complained of, the jury again found the material issues in plaintiff’s favor. The nature of the case sufficiently appears in the report on the first appeal.
For the appellant there were briefs by J. P. Laffey and A. W. McLeod, and oral argument by Mr. McLeod.
For the respondent there was a brief by E. G. Alvord and Sanborn, Lamoreux & Pray, and oral argument by A. W. San-born.

Opinion:
Mabshall, J.
The printed cases upon the several appeals satisfy us that the evidence upon the first and second trials was substantially the same as upon the last one. So the decisions before rule now as to the evidence being sufficient to carry the case to the jury on all vital issues. That is so elementary we need not illustrate by referring to any of the numerous instances where it has been applied. Therefore there is no other course to pursue now than to affirm the judgment. No question of any moment is pressed upon our attention which is not identical with or included within some question raised on the first appeal, and practically on the second as well, and decided against appellant. A question once decided in this court, right or wrong, becomes a rule for the case after it is no longer subject to review on appeal from the particular result reached and the circumstances in respect to the matter remain unchanged.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.