Court Opinion

ID: 9741690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:00:35.028757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.516576
License: Public Domain

Chappell, J.,
concurring.
As far as important here, the mandate of this court in Ruehle v. Ruehle, 161 Neb. 691, 74 N. W. 2d 689, provided as follows: “* * * upon a trial of which cause in said Supreme Court during the January Term, A. D. 1956, a certified copy of the opinion of the Court being attached hereto and made a part hereof, the following judgment was rendered:
“ ‘This cause coming on to be heard upon appeal from the district court of Lancaster County, was argued by counsel and submitted to the court; upon due consideration whereof, the court finds error apparent in the record of the proceedings and judgment of said district court. It is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged that said judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, reversed and the cause remanded with directions to modify the decree in accordance with the opinion of this court this day filed herein. It is further considered, ordered and adjudged that appellant pay all costs incurred herein by her taxed at $20.00; and that appellees pay all costs incurred herein by them, taxed at $5.00; for all of which execution is hereby awarded, and that a mandate issue accordingly.’
“NOW, THEREFORE, You are commanded, without delay, to proceed in conformity with the judgment and opinion of this Court.
“WITNESS, The Honorable Robert G. Simmons, Chief Justice and the Seal of said Court, this nineteenth day of March, 1956. George H. Turner, Clerk. By Gerald S. Vitamvas, Deputy.” (Italics supplied.)
As I view the matter, decision in this second appeal is controlled entirely by rules of law under which we are required to determine whether or not the trial court complied with the mandate in the rendition of its *35judgment. I agree that the trial court did not do so.
In Asbra v. Dean, 160 Neb. 6, 68 N. W. 2d 696, citing authorities, we held: “The provisions of a mandate of this court should be considered as a whole in determining what was decided on appeal.
“When a mandate of the Supreme Court makes the opinion of the court a part thereof by reference, the opinion should be examined in conjunction with the mandate to determine the nature and terms of the judgment to be entered or the action to be taken thereon.
“When a mandate is in the same general language of the opinion in its directions to the lower court, reference may be made solely to the opinion to determine whether the lower court’s decree is in accordance with the mandate.”
Also, in Jurgensen v. Ainscow, 160 Neb. 208, 69 N. W. 2d 856, we held that: “When a mandate of the Supreme Court makes the opinion of the court a part thereof by reference, the opinion should be examined in conjunction with the mandate to determine the nature and terms of the judgment to be entered or the action to be taken thereon.
“When this court reverses a decree as to a matter finally determined thereby, and remands the cause with directions to enter a specific judgment or decree, the mandate of this court is final and conclusive upon all parties, as to all matters so directed, and no new defenses can be entertained or heard in opposition thereto.
“Public interest requires that there shall be an end to litigation, and when a cause has received the consideration of this court, has had its merits determined, and has been remanded with specific directions, the court to which such mandate is directed has no power to do anything other than to enter judgment in accordance with such mandate.”
In Noble v. City of Lincoln, 158 Neb. 457, 63 N. W. 2d 475, we reaffirmed the general rules that: “The decision of questions presented to this court in reviewing the *36proceedings of the district court becomes the law of the case and for purposes of the litigation settles conclusively the matters adjudicated expressly or by necessary implication.
“The law of the case applies to not only questions actually and formally presented but to all questions existing in the record and necessarily involved in the decision.”
We have adhered to these general rules in many cases. See Nebraska Digest, Vol. 2, Appeal and Error, Key No. 1195. ■
Further, in County of Madison v. School District No. 2, 148 Neb. 218, 27 N. W. 2d 172, quoting from International Harvester Co. v. County of Douglas, 146 Neb. 555, 20 N. W. 2d 620, we said: “The rule is: * * the controlling effect of a decision must relate to the factual condition as stated in the opinion. To go behind facts so stated and materially to change the fact basis is to remove the decision as an authority.’ ” I believe that the case at bar is no exception to the foregoing rules.
The substance of the stipulation here involved, which was filed November 30, 1940, is set forth in the original opinion. As far as important here, that stipulation agreed that defendant was then delinquent in payments of child support to plaintiff in the amount of $229.84, for which plaintiff agreed to accept from defendant $104.92 in full payment, and defendant agreed to thereafter pay $30 a month, payable on the first and fifteenth of each month, beginning December 1, 1940, but that in the event ’defendant failed to make any such payments plaintiff at her election might terminate the agreement forthwith and take such steps as she desired to collect child support in the amount of $50 a month as ordered by the trial court in its modification of the original decree effective March 1, 1940.
In that connection,' the stipulation, as quoted in the original opinion, specifically provided that: “ Tt is not the intention of the parties to modify the decree of *37this court as it now stands, but that the decree shall remain in full force and effect, subject, however to this agreement between the parties.’ ”
With regard thereto, after citing authorities, we specifically concluded in the original opinion that: “The stipulation, as appears in the instant case, in no sense modified the decree with reference to the child support, and it was so agreed by the parties as the stipulation discloses.”
The opinion then went on to say: “The appellee contends that an accord and satisfaction prevailed in the instant case when the oral agreement between the appellant and the appellee was made on October 12, 1948, and that according to this agreement the appellant agreed to release the judgment against the appellee for all child support that might have accrued and become due under the decree. We are not in accord with the appellee’s contention in this respect. We are in accord that there is a complete accord and satisfaction of the child support that would have accrued or become due from and after October 12, 1948, by reason of an agreement that was far more beneficial to the interests of the daughter Jo Ann. She had the benefit of an education and nurses training, and acquitted herself with honor, all through the efforts of the appellee by agreement with the appellant.
“We conclude that there should be an accounting as to the child support payments which had accrued and were due up to October 12, 1948, with interest thereon at the legal rate, and that all credits should be given to the appellee for payments made by him for child support. The cause is remanded to the trial court for determination of the amount of child support due on this phase of the case.” (Italics supplied.)
Black’s Law Dictionary (3d Ed.), p. 28, citing authorities, defines “Accounting” as: “The making up and rendition of an account, either voluntarily or by order of a court. * * * In the latter case, it imports a rendi*38tion of a judgment for the balance ascertained to be due. * * * The term may include payment of the amount due.” See, also, Words and Phrases (Perm. Ed.), Accounting, Vol. 1, p. 543.
An examination of the mandate and all of our original opinion discloses, as I view it, that by such accounting for and determination of child support payments which had accrued and were due from defendant under the decree prior to October 12, 1948, as claimed by plaintiff in her cross-petition and denied by the trial court, this court meant an accounting and determination of the difference between $229.84, the amount of child support which was admittedly delinquent and unpaid on December 1, 1940, under the decree effective March 1, 1940, and $104.92 paid by defendant thereon, and the difference between $30 a month paid as child support by defendant between December 1, 1940, and October 12, 1948, and the $50 a month for child support during the same period, as had been ordered by the trial court in its modification of the original decree, which order at all times, as the original opinion concluded, had remained in full force and effect. When such an accounting or determination is made, plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment for the total of such differences, including interest at the legal rate upon delinquent child support installments, as they had accrued and vested under the decree prior to October 12, 1948, and on the principal amount remaining unpaid from such date, with “no allowance of attorney’s fees to be taxed as costs in behalf of” plaintiff, and that plaintiff should “be required to pay her own costs and attorney’s fees.”
In that connection, our original opinion finally said: “For the reasons given in this opinion, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to modify the decree in accordance with the opinion.”
Viewed entirely as a question of law, as aforesaid, I agree that the opinion of Messmore, J., which has been *39submitted and adopted in the present second appeal, disposes of the case in the manner required by applicable and controlling rules of law.