
    The City of Toledo v. Buechell et al.
    “Interest” to Be excluded from amount of judgment under section 6710, Rev. Stat., defined.
    
    Under Section 6710, Eev. ■ Stat., as amended April 25, 1898, 93 Laws, 255, the “interest” that is to' he excluded from the ' amount of the judgment in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the court, is the interest that may have accrued on the judgment, and not that which may have been included in it at the time it was rendered.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiqtion.
    The plaintiff below brought suit against the city of Toledo to recover the amount of certain alleged unlawful exactions made of him by the city, and Avhich he paid under duress. The amount claimed Avas $294.50, with interest thereon from January 1, 1897. A judgment was rendered in his favor for $332, which included the interest as claimed.. On error the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court; and error is prosecuted here for the reversal of the judgment in both courts. The motion is on the ground that the amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, is less than $300.
    
      M. R. Brailey, city solictor, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wertman & Raymond, for defendants in error.
   By the Court:

It will be observed that section 6710, Revised-Statutes, conferring appellate jurisdiction on this court, as amended April, 25,1898 (93 Laws, 255), with certain exceptions, limits its jurisdiction to the review of a judgment in which is involved a sum or value greater than $300, exclusive of interest and costs. This exclusion, however, as we construe the statute, relates to the interest that may have accrued on the judgment since, and not to any sum that may have been included in the judgment when rendered. Thu latter is merged in and becomes a part of the principal for which the judgment is rendered, and this amount determines the jurisdiction of the court. In this case the amount claimed on account of the alleged illegal exactions was $294.50, which, with interest to the time of the rendition of the judgment, amounted to $332, and for which judgment was rendered. The amount then involved in the judgment sought to be reviewed is greater than $300.

Motion overruled.

Shauck, Davis, Spear, Burket .and Williams, JJ., concur.  