
    Hogsett v. Iron & Steel Company.
    
      Appeals —Jurisdiction, Superior Court — Erroneous appeal.
    
    An appeal will not be certified from the Superior to the Supreme Court-under the provisions of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212, upon the petition of the appellant, where the petition for such transfer does not allege that the amount really in controversy exceeds $1,500, and where the appellee does not object to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in the mode pointed out in the 11th section of the Act of May 5, 1899, P. L. 248.
    Petition of W. P. White, appellant, that an appeal be certified to the Supreme Court for hearing and decision under the provisions of the act of June 24, 1895, filed November 20, 1900.
    Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, W. W. Porter and W. D. Porter, JJ.
    Petition refused.
    The petition was as follows:
    “ That your petitioner at the above number and term of this honorable court appealed from the judgment of the court of common pleas of Fayette county in the case of Robert Hog-sett v. Columbia Iron & Steel Co., at No. 51, ex December term, 1893, of said lower court.
    November 23, 1900:
    “ That since taking such appeal your petitioner finds that the said appeal was erroneously taken to this court, for the reason that the amount of appellant’s claim in the court below and disallowed by said court and on account of which he so appealed, amounts to the sum of $7,890.36, with interest thereon from November 6, 1893, and the said amount thus involved exceeds the jurisdiction of your said court and is therefore appealable directly to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    “ That petitioner has attached hereto and made part of this petition the certified records of said lower court showing the taking of said appeal and the amount and character of appellant’s said claim.
    “Wherefore your petitioner showing.the above recited facts prays that said appeal be not quashed, but the said case be certified at the cost of appellant to the said Supreme Court for hearing and decision according to the provisions of the act of the general assembly of this commonwealth in such case made and provided, approved June 24, 1895.”
    The certified records of the lower court referred to in the above petition were a copy of the execution docket entries, which did not disclose the amount really in controversy.
    
      Errett, Martin et al., attorneys, for appellant.
   Per Curiam,

It is not alleged in the petition that the amount really in controversy exceeds $1,500. Nor is it alleged that the appeal was “ erroneously” taken to this court through any mistake either of law or of fact. If, therefore, the appellee does not object to the jurisdiction of this court in the mode pointed out in the 11th section of the Act of May 5, 1899, P. L. 248, we do not think the appellant can.

Petition refused.  