
    S. Huffman v. E. C. Ackarman et al.
    
    No. 14,388.
    (81 Pac. 168.)
    Error from Chautauqua district court; Granville P. Aikman, judge.
    Opinion filed June 10, 1905.
    Dismissed.
    
      R. H. Nichols, and F. S. Jackson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Sproul & Van Tuyl, for defendants in error
   Per Curiam:

The certificate of the trial judge that the suit involves the tax law of the state is not binding on this court. (Railroad Co. v. Morasch, 60 Kan. 251, 56 Pac. 133.) An investigation of the question presented to the court below shows that the tax laws of the state were not involved in the suit. There being less than $100 in controversy, the proceeding in error is dismissed.  