From https://www.bger.ch/files/live/sites/bger/files/pdf/Publikationen/GB/BGer/de/1886_d.pdf

A J. Peloux court sued B. Haas jeune & Cle "a claims for damages of CHF 10,000. Haas & Cie. denied same; anyway they countered in the form of a counterclaim Peloux also filed a claim for damages for defamation of CHF 10,000, which Peloux also contested became. The Court of First Instance dismissed both parties with their legal request. Peloux appealed against this judgment to the High Court of the canton concerned and Haas & Cie adhered to the opposing appeal. The Supreme Court sentenced Haas & Cie to pay damages of CHF 7,000 plus interest since May 16, 1883 to Peloux, as well as for the payment of all costs in both instances, and dismissed the parties with their further outgoing requests. Against this judgment, Haas & Cie the further appeal to the Federal Supreme Court and made the request it should be dismissed the claim of the Peloux, possibly the compensation awarded to the same by the appealed judgment to significantly reduce the sum of CHF 7,000, be against that Haas & Cie to speak well of the counterclaim. Peloux wore to reject the opposing appeal. Now was the fact upon which Peloux made his claim substantially based — filing a criminal lawsuit from side of Haas & Cle — done before January 1, 1883; the legal ones According to Art. 882 of the 349 O. R. according to cantonal law, and it was towards the Federal Supreme Court to assess the claim of the Peloux not competent. On the other hand, the same was for judgment responsible for Haas & Cie's counterclaim, since the facts matter on which that was based - sending a cor- Response card with injuring content from the Peloux side — had taken place since the entry into force of the Swiss Code of Obligations. Alone the second cantonal instance had omitted, in its judgment, be it in the dispositive or just in the motives for the same, to say how much of the Peloux's claim and how granted much of Haas & Cie's counterclaim but to justify the CHF 7,000 for which payment to Peloux the arrangement Haas & Cie condemned, satisfied they themselves, to note in the motive, because of the counterclaim claim from Haas & Cie is on the way to compensation the amount of damages that you have to pay to Peloux, to reduce in a cheap way. From the judgment of the Supreme Court was therefore not apparent how much of the claim and how much of the counterclaim was awarded, but one and only that Haas & Cie to Peloux the amount of CHF 7000 as a surplus of the credited part of the Claim for the approved part of the counterclaim have to pay the claim plus interest. Since it was not ascertained how much of the claim from Approved by the higher courts, but only by the Federal Supreme Court was competent to assess the counterclaim, so was that Federal courts not possible in performance of him, pursuant to Art. 29 and 30 of the Federal Law on the Organization of the Federal Legal care, obligatory obligation, based on the existing files to make a judgment which could have been carried out. It therefore he had no choice but the judgment of the second cantonal instance to clarify and the matter to said to be rejected by the judicial authority so that the same trial determine how much of the claim and how much of the counterclaim claim they are adjudicating. But since Articles 29 and 30 of the law cited belong to the Federal courts the right to set aside a by a cantonal Courts issued verdict and the remittance to the cantonal Instance for reassessment of the process at least not expressly admit it, the question may be asked whether the forthcoming revision of the federal law on the ganisation of the federal administration of justice does not apply to certain cases Federal courts should be expressly granted that right and we therefore believed that our decision in the said further draw trap to be mentioned here specifically.