
    Uplinger v. Kettering et al.
    1. Appeal: certificate of judge. An appeal will not be entertained by the Supreme Court, where the amount in controversy, with the added costs, is less than one hundred dollars, unless it be accompanied by a certificate of the trial judge, as required by Sec. 3173 of the Code.
    Appeal from Lima Circuit Court.
    
    Tuesday, June 13.
    The plaintiff sued the defendant before a justice of the peace on a note for $68.98. The defendant interposed a counter claim for $169.25. Judgment was rendered for defendant for $9.89, and costs. Seven days thereafter plaintiff went to the justice for the purpose of taking an appeal, and presented a bond. The justice said the bond was good and that he would approve it, but he failed to mark it approved, and failed to note in his docket that an appeal was taken. Ten days thereafter a transcript of the justice’s docket was sent to the clerk of the Circuit Court, and the filing fee was paid. At the next term of court, to-wit, the 6th of January, 1875, I. M. Preston & Son entered an appearance for defendant, and moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that no appeal had been allowed, that no bond was ever filed or approved, and that there was nothing to show that an appeal had been taken within the time allowed by law. This motion was sustained on the 15th of the same month. On the 15th day of March following the plaintiff presented his petition for an injunction, asking that the enforcement of the judgment against him be restrained, and that the appeal be reinstated. An injunction was granted, which afterward, on motion of defendant, was dissolved. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      Thompson c& Davis, for appellant.
    
      I. M. Preston dk Son, for appellees.
   Day, J.

The plaintiff sued for $68.98; the defendant, on counter claim, had judgment for $9.89. The object of this action is to restrain the enforcement of the judgment against plaintiff, and to have the appeal reinstated, so that he may have an opportunity to recover the amount by him originally claimed. i

The amount in controversy between these parties, as shown-by the petition for injunction, is the difference between a judgment for plaintiff, for $68.98, which he claims, and one in favor of defendant for $9.89, and the costs, which he has recovered. The petition does not state the amount of costs accrued, so that the amount in controversy, so far as the petition shows, is found by adding what plaintiff claims to what defendant recovered, amounting to $78.87. There is no certificate of the court, such as section 3173 of the Code requires. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed. We reach this conclusion with greater satisfaction, in view of the fact that, if the question were properly presented for our determination, we should affirm the order dissolving the injunction upon its merits

Dismissed.  