
    No. 759
    CINCI. TRACTION CO. v. REILLY
    Ohio Appeals, 1st District, Hamilton County
    No. 2144.
    Decided May 21, 1923
    323. RES ADJUDICA.
    Former holding of Court of Appeals stands, a~ higher court will not consider a case on question o weight of evidence, once reversed by it on tha point-If charge in second trial on measure of dam ages was substantially same as in first trial, al though imperfect, it would stand, under the doc trine of "the law of the case."
    Attorneys-H. K. Rogers, for Traction Co.; Jaci son & Woodward, for Reilly.
   HAMILTON, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Reilly sued Traction Co. for damage to his auto mobile, which was struck by one of its ~treet car: The case was tried for the first time some year previous and resulted in a verdict of $1,200 fo Reilly. The Court of Appeals reversed the j ment on the ground that the verdict was not tamed by sufficient evidence. At the second tria the jury returned a verdict for $1,500 and judg nient was rendered thereon. Reversal is asked b. the Traction Co. on the ground that the verdic and judgment are against the weight of the evidenc and the charge of the court on the measure of dam ages is erroneous. In affirming the judgment, th Court of Appeals held:

1. "The question as to the weight of the evidenc cannot be considered, since the case was formerl reversed on the weight Qf the evidence by this cour See 11577 GC."

2. As to the charge on the measure of damage. the charge given at the second trial w'as substa: tially the same charge as given at the first tria and this court held that that charge was not erro: eous. Therefore, if the charge was imperfect, th ruling of the court in the former trial would b binding under the doctrine of the "law of the case. But the court in the charge gave in substance th correct rule applicable to such cases.  