
    Chapman v. Lobey.
    i. Practice ¡ objection not made below. .The Supreme Court will not consider an objection which was not presented to the court below.
    2. - motion TO reinstate. A motion to reinstate a case on the ■ docket of the District Court is in a great degree addressed to the discretion of the court; and when there has been unreasonable delay in making it, and it is then made without notice to, or an appearance by, the adverse party, an appellate court will not reverse the order refusing to reinstate it, even if it were wrongfully dismissed.
    
      Appeal from Dubuque District -Oourt.,
    Thursday, October 18.
    This action was commenced before a justice of the peace for forcible entry and detainer. The cause was tried before-the justice and resulted, in a judgment for the plaintiff. .The defendant appealed to the District Court, where his appeal was dismissed, and he has now appealed to this court. The further facts will be found stated in the opinion.
    
      Wilson <& Doud for the appellant.
    No appearance for the appellee.
   Cole, J.

This cause was tried before a justice of the peace, on the 8th' day of March, 1865. The defendant filed his. appeal bond with the justice on the 11th day of March, but there was no revenue stamp affixed thereto. The transcript was properly made out and duly filed in the office of the clerk of the District Court. At the first term and on the 16th day of May, 1865, the plaintiff filed his motion to dismiss the appeal, because there was no revenue stamp on the appeal bond. ■ After the motion was made and before it was decided, the defendant affixed to the bond and canceled a proper revenue stamp. On the 19th day of May, the motion to dismiss the appeal was sustained. On the next day (May 20th) the defendant asked and obtained leave .to take the bond from the files for the purpose of stamping it before the proper revenue officer. The revenue stamp was affixed and canceled, and the penalty for previous failure to stamp was remitted by the deputy collector, on the 8th day of March, 1866; and on the 16th day of March, 1866, the defendant filed his affidavit' and motion to'reinstate the cause. This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

I. The counsel for appellant raises and discusses the constitutionality of the revenue law, so far as it requires the affixing of a stamp to a legal process, or notice of appeal. But, since the defendant did not accept to the decision of the court dismis. sing Ms appeal, there is no question thereon for us to determine.

II. The motion to reinstate the cause was not filed until about ten months after the appeal was dismissed. The granting or refusing such motion is, to a very great degree, a matter of discretion,; and where, as in this case, there has been an unreasonable delay in mating it, and it is then made without any notice to, or appearance by, the adverse party, an appellate court would not be justified in reversing this order, refusing to reinstate it, even if it had been wrongfully dismissed.

Affirmed.  