Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, see note 12, supra; In re. Estate of Severns, see note 10, supra.Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, see note 12, supra; Reed v. Robinson, 1923 OK 645, ¶ 6, 219 P. 296. ¶ 13 The exception to the doctrine of law of the case is that the doctrine is not applied if the prior decision is palpably erroneous and this Court is convinced that failure to reverse it will result in a gross or manifest injustice.

Whether the issue was wrongfully or rightfully decided is not to be determined; once settled on appeal, the appellate court will not review the issue on the second appeal. See, Reed v. Robinson, 1923 OK 645, ¶ 6, 219 P. 296, 297. ¶ 7 This doctrine does have an exception: it is not applied if the prior decision is palpably erroneous and this Court is convinced that failure to reverse it will result in a gross or manifest injustice.

III. The Trial Court erred in basing the award of the custody of the two children upon the punishment of appellant instead of the welfare of the children. Boswell v. Pope, 213 Miss. 31, 56 So.2d 1; Conrad v. Fountain, 202 Miss. 237, 30 So.2d 303; Evans v. Evans, 195 Miss. 320, 15 So.2d 698; Amis on Divorce Separation in Miss., Secs. 214, 219 p. 296. Colin L. Stockdale, Jackson, for appellee.

The decree of the Court is contrary to the law in the case. Gresham v. Gresham, supra; Scott v. Scott, 219 Miss. 614, 69 So.2d 489; Kartman v. Kartman, 163 Md. 19, 161 A. 269; Dunnigan v. Dunnigan, 182 Md. 47, 31 A.2d 634; Bland v. Stoudemire, 219 Miss. 526, 69 So.2d 225; Sec. 399, Code 1942; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, Sec. 289 pp. 1111, 1264; Amis on Divorce and Separation in Miss., Sec. 219 p. 296. W.E. McIntyre, Jr., Brandon, for appellee.

In the original action the trial court unquestionably had jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction of the parties, and power to render the judgment rendered. In Reed v. Robinson, 92 Okla. 107, 219 P. 296; Moreland v. State ex rel. Hatfield, 175 Okla. 38, 51 P.2d 945; Wolfe v. State ex rel. Presson, 163 Okla. 180, 21 P.2d 1067; Board of Education of Independent School Dist. No. 11, Osage County, v. Philadelphia Fire Marine Ins. Co., 156 Okla. 7, 9 P.2d 737; Midland Valley R. Co. v. Clark, 96 Okla. 264, 221 P. 1025, and numerous other cases we have held that the decision of this court on a first appeal settled and determined not only all questions actually presented, but all questions existing in the record and necessarily involved in the decision by implication, and that such questions could not be raised on a subsequent appeal. In Reed v. Robinson, supra, we said that to permit such questions to be made the ground of a second appeal would be to hold that the case could be disposed of piecemeal, which this court has held could not be done.

"This court having held on a former appeal that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of all the evidence, and inasmuch as there is no substantial difference in the facts presented in this case from those presented in the case when it was here before, the decision of the former appeal is controlling." Carroll v. Worley, 127 Okla. 173, 260 P. 3; Johnson v. Taylor, 131 Okla. 113, 267 P. 1052; Bass Furn. Carpet Co. v. Finley, 129 Okla. 40, 263 P. 130; Powell v. United Mining Milling Co., 107 Okla. 170, 231 P. 307; Kirby v. Hardin, 41 Okla. 609, 134 P. 854; Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Bridges, 37 Okla. 430, 132 P. 133; Reed v. Robinson, 92 Okla. 107, 219 P. 296; Mickelson v. Helm, 89 Okla. 90, 214 P. 117; Midland Sav. Loan Co. v. Sutton, 93 Okla. 230, 220 P. 663; Cleveland v. Mascho, 95 Okla. 22, 222 P. 1008; City of Yale v. Noble, 113 Okla. 106, 239 P. 463; Kingfisher Imp. Co. v. Talley, 51 Okla. 226, 151 P. 873; Corder v. Purcell, 50 Okla. 771, 151 P. 482; City v. Colbert, 52 Okla. 235, 152 P. 603; Producers v. Maple Co., 133 Okla. 224; 52 Okla. 769; 41 Okla. 122; 53 Okla. 379; 58 Okla. 22; 63 Okla. 169; 85 Okla. 163; 62 Okla. 263; 73 Okla. 40; 62 Okla. 112; 68 Okla. 240; 62 Okla. 109; 21 Okla. 503; 39 Okla. 565; 36 Okla. 76; 37 Okla. 48; 25 Okla. 199; 90 Okla. 195; 98 Okla. 47; 4 C. J. 1093-1099-1213-1321; 5 Cyc. 49, 492. This court justifies itself by stating that the law as determined at the time of the instant appointment of guardian and sale upheld constructive notice.

It will be observed that the amendment in question was made in conformity with the former decision of this cause by this court. The order, having been made by this court in the former appeal, became the settled law of the case (Reed v. Robinson, 92 Okla. 107, 219 P. 296). But aside from this, the final judgment rendered by the district court in this appeal only establishes a lien against the premises of the defendant.

The defendant in error, however, contends that this question cannot be presented for determination on this appeal, for the reason that the evidence in the second trial is practically identical with that of the first trial, and that the question as to its sufficiency was the question presented by the first appeal. Counsel for defendant in error have devoted their entire brief to the discussion of this question and cite many cases, from this and other courts, an examination on which discloses that they are not applicable to the instant case. Counsel cite Reed et al. v. Robinson, 92 Okla. 107, 219 P. 296, wherein the first paragraph of the syllabus provides: "Where a case is brought a second time on error to this court, the first decision will be deemed the settled law of the case, and will not be made a subject of re-examination.