This is the same case that was before us, upon demurrers, at the Fall Term, 1932, opinion filed 30 November, 1932, reported in 203 N. C., 590, 166 S. E., 589.
The “law of the case” is established by the decision on the first appeal. Power Co. v. Yount, ante, 182. “A decision by the Supreme Court on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal.” Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65, 48 S. E., 571. Compare Thompson v. Funeral Home, ante, 178.
We then said that “if the committeemen were not actuated by malice or corruption, there can be no recovery,” and it is not now for us to say whether the evidence engenders such a conviction. It appears sufficient to warrant the inference, hence the case is one for the jury. James v. Coach Co., 207 N. C., 742, 178 S. E., 607.
Malice in law, as distinguished from malice in fact, is presumed from tortious acts, deliberately done without just cause, excuse, or justification, which are reasonably calculated to injure another or others. 18 R. C. L., 4; 38 C. J., 348.
Speaking to the subject in Brown v. Brown, 124 N. C., 19, 32 S. E., 320, Montgomery, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, quoted with approval the following: “The term 'malice,’ as applied to torts, does not necessarily mean that which must proceed from a spiteful, malignant, or *412revengeful disposition, but a conduct injurious to another, though proceeding from an ill-regulated mind not sufficiently cautious before it occasions an injury to another. 11 Serg. & R., 39, 40. If the conduct of the defendant was unjustifiable and actually caused the injury complained of by the plaintiff, which was a question for the jury, malice in law would be implied from such conduct, and the court should have so charged.”
Corruption is more nearly akin to malignancy, hatred, ill-will, or spite, and flows from improper motives. Downing v. Stone, 152 N. C., 525, 68 S. E., 9.
The committeemen knew, as Crowder is quoted as having said; “Wilson ain’t fitten for a truck driver.” They also persisted in selecting him over the protest of patrons of the school, who openly charged him with recklessness and incompetency. They knew, too', that they were practicing nepotism, which goes to the bona. fides of their action. Brown v. Brown, supra. Let a jury of the vicinage say how it is. 10 R. C. L.,. 938, et seq.
Reversed.