
    P. ROLLINS and others v. HUGH BISHOP.
    
      Aetion to Recover Real Estate--Eviction of Tenant — Practise.
    If, in an action for the recovery of real estate in which a third person claiming as landlord of the defendant has been made a party defendant, judgment is taken against the tenant defendant and he is evicted, he is-entitled to be restored to possession until the determination of the controversy between the plaintiff and the interpleading defendant.
    Civil ActioN; to recover possession of Real Estate tried at Eall Term, 1875, of Buncombe Superior Court, before Henry, J.
    
    The facts in this case are the same as in the preceding case.
    
      Mr. J. H. Merrimon, for. plaintiffs.
    
      Messrs. Battle Mordecai and J. G. Martin $ Son, for defendant.
   Bynum, J.

These four actions are instituted by the same plaintiffs for the same premises and under the same claim of title, as in the case of P. Rollins et al v. Ham Rollins and R. M. Henry, decided at the present term. The same questions are involved and the decision in that' case is referred to as the decision of the Court in these actions. If the defendants or either of them have been evicted on judgments obtained in these actions they are entitled to restitution of possession until the determination of the issue made in them all between the plaintiffs and R. M. Henry who has applied and has the right to be made defendant either with or in the place of the tenants.

Error.

Per- Curiam. Venire ele novo. 
      
      
        Rollins v. Edward Sams; Rollins v. Bishop Johnson; Rollins v. James Bishop.
      
     