¶1 (After stating the foregoing facts.) Assuming, but not deciding, that the amendments may have been sufficient to meet the rulings of this court as to divisions 2 and 4 of the opinion in Wright v. Conner, 200 Ga. 413, the petition was fatally defective under the rulings made in division 3. The amendment did *754 not purport to enlarge upon the alleged acts of omission as set forth in the original petition, and which were held, in division 5 of the opinion in Wright v. Conner, supra, to be insufficient to authorize a forfeiture of the life-tenant’s estate. The petition as finally amended must proceed, if at all, on waste alleged, the cutting of timber. In division 3 of the court’s previous rulings, it was held that the demurrer, setting up a bar to the action as contravening the period of limitations as to the alleged acts of waste, was good and should have been sustained. This ruling became the law of the ease. Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 27 Ga. 334; Allen v. Schweigert, 113 Ga. 69 (38 S. E. 397) ; W. & A. R. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 125 Ga. 489 (54 S. E. 621); Rivers v. Brown, 200 Ga. 49 (36 S. E. 2d, 429). It follows that the trial court properly sustained the demurrers to the petition as amended.
¶2 Judgment affirmed.