Case Name: J. E. LATHAM v. J. E. FIELDS et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1914-04-15
Citations: 166 N.C. 215
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. E. LATHAM v. J. E. FIELDS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 215–215

Head Matter:
J. E. LATHAM v. J. E. FIELDS et al.
(Filed 15 April, 1914.)
Appeal and Error — Second Appeal — Same Exceptions.
Sphere a case Las been tried in the Superior Court in accordance with a decision therein rendered on a former appeal, exceptions therein taken will not again be passed upon by the Supreme Court on a second appeal.
Appeal by defendants from Lane, J., at January Term, 1914, of Guilford.
King & Kimball and Thomas 8. Beall for plaintiff.
Thomas G. Koyle, R. G. Strudwick, and T. J. Norris for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Tbis is the third appeal in this case. 160 N. C., 335; 163 N. C., 356. A close examination of the evidence taken at the last trial Satisfies us that there was ample proof of the fact that John D. Turner was acting for J. E. Field & Son in selling the -cotton to plaintiff, and not for himself, and that the sale was made by J. E. Field & Son to plaintiff, through J. D. Turner. There was strong oral and documentary evidence of this fact, which was properly left to the jury. That was the main question in controversy. . The evidence, now before us is substantially the same as that considered by the Court in the 'other appeals, the difference, if any, being in favor of plaintiff, appellee. When this is the case, we follow the former decision, which cannot be reviewed by another appeal. Carson v. Insurance Co., 165 N. C., 135; Bank v. Furniture Co., 120 N. C., 475. The case was tried in strict accordance with our opinions in those appeals, and therefore there is no ground for reversal. There must be an end of litigation somewhere, and this cannot be accomplished and nothing would ever be settled if by successive appeals parties are permitted to revive the same questions already decided. The jury have found that Turner was acting as defendant's agent, upon sufficient evidence of the fact, and the judgment on the verdict will not be disturbed.
No error.