
    [File No. 7257]
    SOLOMENA ZIMMERMAN, and John F. Schneider as Administrator of the Estate of Gottlieb Zimmerman, Appellants, v. EMMA KITZAN, Hilda Kitzan Heinle, Walter Kitzan, Florence Kitzan Metzger and Christ Kitzan, Respondents.
    (56 NW2d 208)
    Opinion filed Nov. 21, 1952.
    Rehearing denied Jan. 8, 1953
    
      J, K. Murray, for appellants.
    
      Milton K. Higgins, for respondents.
   Per Curiam:

Upon a former appeal in this case, 77 ND 477, 43 NW2d 822, we affirmed an order of the district court granting a new trial. In proceedings in district court after remand, the attorney for defendants moved the court to vacate-the order which this court had affirmed. The district court granted the motion and entered ah order vacating the order granting a new trial. This appeal is from that order.

There is no question but that the order appealed from was-beyond the power of the district court. In effect the- vacation of an order affirmed by this court is a vacation of an order of this court. Unless the decisions of this court are clothed with finality “litigation would never be ended, and the supreme tribunal of the state would be shorn of authority over inferior tribunals.” 3 Am Jur (Appeal and Error Sec 1236) 732, see also, 5 CJS (Appeal and Error Sec 1964) 1501, 1502; Walker v. Young, et al., 93 Fla 29, 111 So 516; Jacobson v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Assn., 71 ND 542, 3 NW2d 239; Colter v. Dill, 49 ND 902, 193 NW 662; Weigel v. Powers Elevator Co., 50 ND 776, 198 NW 121.

The order appealed from is reversed.

Morris, C. J. and Burke, Sathre, Christianson and Crimson, JJ., concur.  