
    Hassett v. The Germania Building Association. The Germania Building Association v. Hassett et al.
    
    Appeal: jurisdiction : amount in controversy. Where the amount in controversy was reduced to less than one hundred dollars by a tender, which was accepted pending the suit, and admitted in the answer, held that no appeal could be taken to this court without the certificate of the trial judge required by section 3173 of the Code.
    
      Appeal from Clinton District Court. — Hon. A. Howat, Judge.
    Filed, October 9, 1889.
    The plaintiff Martin Hassett was a member of the Germania Building Association, a corporation organized under the laws of this state. He borrowed from said association the sum of twelve hundred dollars, for which he gave his promissory note,, and a mortgage upon certain real estate, to secure the payment of the same. He made certain payments upon the loan, and, on the second day of June, 1887, he tendered to the defendant the sum of eight hundred and six dollars, which he claimed to be sufficient to fully pay said note' and mortgage. The defendant refused to accept the tender. Plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to receive said sum in full of the said indebtedness, and the tender was kept' good by a deposit of' the amount with the clerk of the district court. The defendant averred and claimed that the sum tendered was insufficient to discharge the debt. An action was also brought to foreclose the mortgage. The two actions were by consent consolidated, and tried as one. There was a decree for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    
      WalMker Bros., for appellant.
    
      Ellis & McCoy, for appellee.
   Rothrook, J.

It is claimed by counsel for appellee that the appeal cannot be entertained, because the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars, and there is no certificate of the trial judge authorizing the appeal, as required by section 3173 of the Code. The amount in controversy consists of certain fines imposed upon the plaintiff for non-payment of dues to the association. As has been stated, the plaintiff tendered to the defendant the sum of eight hundred and six dollars, and the record shows that the tender was paid to the defendant pending the suit. It was received without prejudice to claim the amount in dispute between the parties. As to this amount, it is averred in the answer that “said plaintiff, by reason of defaults in the payment of installments and interests, as provided by its by-laws, has been and is subject to a fine of $96.16, all of which is still unpaid, except the sum of $18.57; that by reason of the premises there is a greater amount due • the defendant from the plaintiff than the sum of eight hundred and six dollars. The tender of eight hundred and six dollars was admitted in the answer. It will thus be seen that the amount in controversy was $96.16, less $18.57, which is '$77.59; ánd, as we understand the evidence of the'secretary of the association, even less than the last-named sum was in controversy. It is very plain that, as there is no question of law certified by the trial judge, this court has no jurisdiction of the case. The appeal will be

Dismissed.  