
    Seibert v. City of Evansville.
    [No. 24,617.
    Filed October 8, 1924.]
    1. Municipal Corporations.—Civil Action.—Suit to Recover Penalty for Violation of Ordinance.—A suit by a city to recover the penalty for the violation of a city ordinance is a civil action, p. 189.
    2. Appeal.—Amount in Controversy.—Nature of Subject-Matter.—Statute.—Where the amount in controversy in a civil action, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed fifty dollars ($50) no appeal will lie to the Supreme or Appellate Court unless the case presents for decision a question as to the validity of a franchise or ordinance, the constitutionality or proper construction of a statute, or rights guaranteed by the state or federal constitution, (§§1389, 1391 Burns 1914, §1, Acts 1903 p. 280, §8, Acts 1901 p. 566). p. 189.
    From Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Philip C. Gould, Judge.
    Action by City of Evansville against Edward Seibert. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
    
      Appeal dismissed.
    
    
      Oscar Birch, for appellant.
    
      John R. Brill and John W. Brady, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The appellee sued appellant to recover a penalty for an alleged violation of a city ordinance, and recovered a judgment against him for $5 and costs. Such a suit is a civil action. Shea v. City of Muncie (1897), 148 Ind. 14, 33, 46 N. E. 138.

Where the amount in controversy in a civil action, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $50,’ no appeal will lie to the Supreme or Appellate Court unless the case presents for decision a question as to the validity of a franchise or ordinance, the constitutionality or proper construction of a statute, or rights guaranteed by the state or federal constitution. §§1389, 1391 Burns 1914, §1, Acts 1903 p. 280, §8, Acts 1901 p. 566.

No such question being presented by this appeal, it cannot be maintained. The appeal is dismissed.  