*874 Pee Cueiam:.

Several serious exceptions have been entered on tbe record, but a careful perusal of tbe whole case leaves us witb tbe impression tbat they should all be resolved in favor of tbe validity of tbe trial. Most of tbe questions, presently sought to be presented, were considered by us on a former appeal, 185 N. C., 227; and tbe court on tbe second trial, seems to have followed tbe law substantially as declared on tbe first appeal. ¥e are not now permitted to review any question which was decided on tbe former appeal, as a party who loses in this Court may not have tbe case reheard by a second appeal. Ray v. Veneer Co., 188 N. C., 414.

“A decision by tbe Supreme Court on a prior appeal constitutes tbe law of tbe case, both in subsequent proceedings in tbe trial court and on a subsequent appeal.” Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65. To like effect are numerous decisions in this and other jurisdictions. See Note, 34 L. R. A., 321. Speaking to tbe question in Vann v. Edwards, 135 N. C., p. 676, it was said tbat “tbe decision of a Court of final resort, upon a given state of facts, becomes tbe law of tbe case upon a second trial and another appeal in regard to those facts, if they are substantially tbe same as those upon which tbe former decision was made.”

It would serve na useful purpose to consider tbe exceptions seriatim, as tbe law of tbe case was settled and discussed by us on tbe former appeal.

Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

CoNNOE, J., did not sit.