[1] Life Insurance—Medical Examination—Accidents.—In a medical examination on an application for life insurance, a question as to what illnesses, diseases, or accidents the applicant has had since childhood calls for facts in regard to accidents suffered since childhood, as well as illnesses and diseases, and an answer which omits all mention of accidents is, in effect, an answer that no accidents have been sustained.

[2] Law of the Case—Meaning of.—The doctrine of the law of the case means simply that the court having once decided the law and the cause having gone back to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the law as thus established, and the parties and the lower court having acted in reliance upon that law, the appellate court will not, upon a second appeal, again enter into a consideration of the question, but, if the facts and circumstances are substantially the same, will treat it as settled law, regardless of its accuracy.

[3] Life Insurance—False Answers—Directing Verdict.—In an action on a life insurance policy where the evidence conclusively shows that the answer to a question concerning “illnesses, diseases, and accidents" was untrue and, according to the law laid down for the guidance of the trial court, the truth or falsity of the answers was the determining factor and the only question to be submitted to the jury, it was proper for the judge to direct a verdict for defendant upon the theory that a material question had been falsely answered by the decedent..

[4] Id.'—Accident—Informing Medical Adviser—Incompetent Evidence.—In an action on a life insurance policy, where it is contended in defense that the insured falsely answered a question on his medical examination in failing to report an accident, there is no competent evidence in support of plaintiff’s contention that the decedent informed the medical examiner of the accident, where the only evidence tendered was that of the physician, who testified that he had no independent recollection whatever of the examination and a memorandum signed by the witness by which it was sought to refresh his memory dated nine years after the examination was not shown to have been written or dictated by the witness or to have been written at a time when it was fresh in the witness’ memory or that he knew the fact was correctly stated-therein.

[5] Id.—Witnesses—¡Refreshing Memory—Memorandum.—A witness cannot refresh his memory or testify from a memorandum unless it is made to appear that the memorandum complies with certain qualifications specified in section 2047 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

[6] Id.—Evidence—Failure to Call Witness—Presumption.—In such an action the contention of plaintiff that since defendant objected to plaintiff’s questioning the physician who examined the decedent for defendant and itself failed to call the physician, the presumption arises that the physician’s testimony would have been adverse to defendant, cannot be maintained, as defendant was under no obligation to call the physician as its own witness or to permit him to testify for plaintiff, especially as the physician was unable to recall the medical examination at all and there was no legally competent memorandum to aid him.