
    Astwood v. Wanamaker.
    
      Appeals—Supreme Court—Superior Court—Decree on trustee’s account.
    
    Under the Act of May 5, 1899, P. L. 248, on appeal from a decree or judgment for the payment of money in any court or any form of action, the amount in controversy is determined for purposes of jurisdiction by the amount of the decree or judgment.
    Argued Jan. 19, 1904.
    Appeal, No. 219, Jan. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1897, No. 195, in case of Henry C. C. Astwood v. John Wanamaker et al.
    Before Mitchell, C. J., Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Thompson, JJ.
    Remitted to Superior Court.
    The plaintiff brought assumpsit against the defendants. By agreement of the parties Frank P. Prichard was appointed referee.
    In pursuance of the report of the referee the following judgment was entered:
    Judgment without appeal or writ of error or objection or exception is hereby entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff in the above entitled matter for one half the cost of the proceedings before the referee, including one half of the total fee of the referee of $600; that the defendants are not at the present time indebted to the plaintiff; and that when defendants shall have received from payments since April 4,1901, from the foreign debt of the republic of San Domingo the sum of $23,862.36, with interest at six per cent from April 4, 1901, and shall have further received any balance of the sum of $9,149.98 due by the plaintiff to the defendants upon an account between the two, with interest thereon from February 1, 1899, which then remains unpaid out of the collateral of the plaintiff in the hands of the defendants, the defendants shall then assign to the plaintiff without recourse whatever claim the defendants may have against the Dominican government under the act of congress of said government of April 4, 1891, and any collateral remaining in their hand belonging to the plaintiff.
    
      
      Lincoln L. Eyre, for appellant.
    P. P. Eothermel and Samuel M. Clement, Jr., for appellee.
    April 18, 1904:
   Per Curiam,

A majority of the court are of the opinion that this case falls within the rule of construction of the Act of May 5,1899, P. L. 248, adopted in Prentice v. Hancock, 204 Pa. 128, and as the money item of the judgment is less than $1,500 the appeal must go to the Superior Court. We therefore express no opinion on any of the questions raised.

Record ordered to be remitted to the Superior Court.  