
    GIAMPAOLA v. PAOLI.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 8, 1912.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1099)—Law of the Case—Subsequent Appeal.
    Where the evidence has been held on appeal insufficient to support the judgment, a second judgment for the same party on substantially the same evidence must be reversed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4370-4379; Dec. Dig. § 1099.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
    Action by Amadeo Giampaolo against Allessandro Delli Paoli. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued January term, 1912, before SEABURY, GERARD, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
    Ralph W. Botham, for appellant.
    Charles S. Rosenthal, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § humber in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The evidence contained in the record before us upon this appeal does not materially differ from that given upon a' former trial of this case, which resulted in a judgment which was reversed. 129 N. Y. Supp. 180. It follows, therefore, that a reversal must again be ordered.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.  