106.CALDERON v. COQUARD.

mons issued out of the Circuit Court of the Second judicial Circuit, on the 10th day of July, 1905, against the defendant, summoning him to answer the memorial on or before the first Tuesday in August. The defendant was duly served with process and on his appearance filed a demurrer, which being overruled, he was ordered to answer the memorial. He later filed his plea to the jurisdiction of the court which, being set down for argument, was later sustained by the court, the Honorable H. A. Gudger, judge presiding, and the suit ordered dismissed at complainant's costs.
The plaintiff brings the case to this Court on appeal and asks the reversal of the judgment below, assigning errors.
The complaint filed in the case recites that the plaintiff is a resident of the city of Panama" and comes into court in the character of legYal representative of his wife, Magdalena Herrera, and her absent brother, Toma"s Herrera, and that by executive order against the defendant, the possessor of a certain house mortgaged for a certain sum in favor of one Don Tom6ds Herrera, from whom the complainants derived their rights, the said house was sold at public auction and the case adjudicated in plaintiff's favor;
That the said case was commenced before the provisional delineation and acquirement by the United States of the territory. of the Canal Zone; that the said case was heard in the Court of the first judge of the Panama Circuit, who decided that he should and must continue the case for the reason that his jurisdiction was absolute at the time of the commencement of the suit, and furthermore because the parties thereto voluntarily assented; that no Panam al law has suspended or regulated the jurisdiction of the judges in the strip of land ceded to the United States;, that there have been no arrangements adopted by the two Governments for the transfer ofjurisdiction from one authority to the other;
That it is true that the new American judges do not regard the Panamanian judges as having any jurisdiction within the Canal Zone, and the complainant has not been able to take possession of the aforesaid house that was adjudged to belong to him by virtue of the decree of sale, the original of which is attached to the complaint; That to avoid greater loss to his principals, he prays that

1906.