
    (60 South. 1025.)
    No. 19,354.
    SAMAHA v. SAIK.
    (Feb. 17, 1913.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Appeal and Ereor (§ 1106*) — Remand without Decision — Determination oe Issues.
    Where defendant, against whom judgment was rendered, petitions on appeal that he has purchased, at execution sale against plaintiff, all the plaintiff’s right, title, and interest in the suit, to which plaintiff answered orally that the seizure and sale had been enjoined, and that the injunction suit was still pending, the cause will be remanded for a hearing to determine such fact; the Supreme Court not having original jurisdiction in the premises.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4386-4398; Dec. Dig. § 1106.*]
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge.
    Action by Rajah Samaha against Nahoom Saik. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Defendant having filed a petition representing that he has become the owner of plaintiff’s right, title, and interest in the suit, the action is remanded to determine that fact.
    
      James J. MeLoughlin, of New Orleans, for appellant. Foster, Milling, Brian & Saal, of New Orleans, for appellee.
   LAND, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages fox-false imixrisonment, and on the second trial of the cause obtained judgment for $1,000, from which defendant has appealed.

The defendant and appellant has filed in this court a petition representing that, since the taking of the appeal herein, he has become the owner by purchase at sheriff’s sale of all the right, title, and interest of the plaintiff in this suit, as shown by proe&s verbal of the civil sheriff of the parish of Orleans, annexed to the petition. The transcript of appeal shows a notice from the sheriff to the clerk of the civil district court that said official, by virtue of a writ of fieri facias, issued in the suit of Saheed Nami v. Rajah Samaha, had seized all the right, title, and interest of the plaintiff in this suit. Counsel for plaintiff and appellee stated at the bar that the seizure and sale of their client’s interest in this suit had been enjoined, and that the injunction suit is still pending. As this court has no original jurisdiction in the premises, it is necessary to remand the case.

It is therefore ordered that this caxxse be remanded to the court below for the sole purpose of hearing and determining on rule whether the defendant has become the owner of all the right, title, and interest of the plaintiff in this suit.  