This case has been here on a former appeal, and, as all the facts concerning it are stated in the former opinion (
On the first trial of the issues the jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellant for tfie recovery of tfie sum of $1,600, and on tfie appeal we field tfiat tfie undisputed evidence adduced by appellant showed tfiat fie was entitled to recover a sum largely in excess of tfiat amount, and we remanded tfie case for a new trial. Appellee did not introduce any testimony either on tfie first trial or tfie last, and the testimony introduced by appellant on tfie last trial was tfie same as tfiat introduced on tfie first trial. On tfie last trial tfie verdict was in favor of appellant for recovery of $1,500. ,
Tfie same reasons given for reversal in tfie former trial call for a reversal of tfie judgment now appealed from. Our reason for remanding tfie casé on tfie former appeal was tfiat appellee might desire to introduce testimony, but, as no testimony was introduced on tfie retrial of tfie case, no useful purpose would be served by remanding tfie case again for a new trial.
Tfie evidence is undisputed tfiat appellant is entitled to tfie sum of $3,387.19, the amount of tfie certificate of indebtedness given by tfie road commissioners to appellant, together with, interest.
The judgment of tfie circuit court is therefore reversed, and judgment will be rendered here for tfie sum mentioned above, with interest at legal rate from tfie date of tfie filing of tfie claim in tfie circuit court, together with all costs of tfie proceeding, including tfie costs of this appeal, and tfie judgment thus rendered will be certified down to tfie circuit court for enforcement, in accordance with tfie statute winding up tfie affairs of tfie road district.