
    John Haacke, Appellant, v. Jacob Marx, Respondent.
    (Argued January 29, 1925;
    decided February 25, 1925.)
    
      Landlord and tenant —■ action to recover for alleged illegal eviction — no recovery where eviction was pursuant to warrant of dispossession pursuant to final order after trial though it appears landlord had sold premises during pendency of proceedings.
    
    
      Haacke v. Marx, 210 App. Div. 248, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment, entered July 22, 1924, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to recover damages for an alleged illegal eviction. The landlord’s petition was properly filed, a precept properly issued, an answer filed, a trial of the issues had, a final order made, and the warrant of dispossess properly executed. It now appears that the landlord sold the premises prior to the issuance of the precept but after the filing of his petition. The question was whether the final order in the dispossess proceedings could be ignored and the landlord sued for damages upon the theory that the court was without jurisdiction.
    
      John A. Leddy for appellant.
    
      Harry E. Herman and Henry Lehrich for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs;- no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ. Absent: McLaughlin, J.  