On Rehearing.
COLEMAN, Justice.Appellee says that on original deliverance we erred in interpretation of well-settled principles of law and that the cases we cited do not support the decision. It may be that the reason for reversal is not clearly spelled out in the original opinion. To eliminate doubt, we state the applicable rule as follows:
“It is the generally accepted rule that it will constitute grounds for a new trial if counsel, in disregard of the court’s ruling that a certain line of evidence is inadmissible, persists in attempting to get such evidence before the jury to the prejudice of the unsuccessful party. * * *
❖ A' * A' % *
“ ‘Where an incompetent question is asked, opposing counsel must either permit it to be answered or enter his objection; and, although the trial court refuses to permit the question to be answered, the very fact that the same question in a different form is repeatedly asked, and a vigorous objection interposed to its answer, emphasizes its importance in the minds of the jury, and necessarily prejudices the case, and for this reason, if for no other, where this practice is pursued to the extent indicated in the record in this case, the judgment should be reversed.’ ” Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell, 221 Ala. 225, 228, 229, 128 So. 389, 392.
In the instant case, plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly asked questions which suggested that defendant had insurance to cover his liability in this case, and in each instance where defendant objected to the question, the objection was sustained. The action of the court in ruling against plaintiff, repeatedly, could but serve to warn him that his references to insurance were improper. *683Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Payne, 133 Ky. 539, 118 S.W. 352, 19 Ann.Cas. 294, quoted in Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell, supra. See also: Birmingham National Bank v. Bradley, 108 Ala. 205, 19 So. 791; Birmingham Electric Company v. Ryder, 225 Ala. 369, 144 So. 18; City of Birmingham v. Williams, 231 Ala. 232, 164 So. 101; Porter Coal Company v. Davis, 231 Ala. 359, 165 So. 93; Alabama Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Stanfield, 234 Ala. 44, 173 So. 392; Travis v. Hubbard, 267 Ala. 670, 104 So.2d 712.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.