
    George C. Bandy, Appellee, v. Litchfield & Madison Railway Company, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1725
      
      —when decision on former appeal is controlling. The decision on á former appeal in a negligence action that the verdict is against the weight of evidence is controlling on a new trial in the court to which the case is remanded and upon a second appeal, if the case presented upon the second trial and appeal is the same as the case on the prior appeal.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Lotus Bernreuteb, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed April 5, 1918.
    Rehearing denied and opinion modified and refiled June 22, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by George C. Bandy, plaintiff, against Litchfield & Madison Bailway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff as the result of being thrown from a motor ear driven by a train dispatcher of defendant on its track. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,625, defendant appeals.
    For earlier decisions on appeal after former trials, see 183 Ill. App. 492, and 196 Ill. App. 560. For the decision on appeal in an action which a companion of plaintiff brought, see Schmidt v. Litchfield & M. Ry. Co., 179 Ill. App. 533.
    P. B. Warren and D, H. Mudge, for appellant.
    Burton & Burton, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV» and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic ancL section number*
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 1725*—when decisions on former appeal are controlling. In an action against a railroad company to recover for injury to one due to the derailing of a motor car being operated by one of defendant’s servants on its tracks, held that the evidence presented, although including that of two witnesses who had not testified on former trials, was no different from that on the former trials so as to render the decisions of the Appellate Court on appeal from the judgments on the former trials, that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, controlling.  