
    Richmond.
    Shacklett v. Western Lunatic Asylum.
    January 8th, 1891.
    Appellate Jurisdiction—Minimum.—Where amount involved is less than the jurisdictional minimum of $500, and no constitutional question is in the case, the writ of erroT must be dismissed.
    Argued at Staunton. Decided at Richmond.
    Error to judgment of the hustings court of city of Staunton, rendered July 10th, 1889, in a proceeding by notice, wherein the Western Lunatic Asylum was plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error, Abner Shacklett, was defendant. The object of the proceeding was to recover the sum of $67.50 for the board of the defendant’s daughter in the asylum for the period of three months. The defendant contending that the statute, Code, sec. 1677, under which.the proceeding was had, was unconstitutional, in that it discriminates between citizens of Virginia, and aims at holding the wealthy citizen liable personally for compensation for the use of said asylum, for any member of his family, whilst the poor man enjoys its use free of cost, obtained a writ of error and supersedeas to said judgment.
    
      G. W. Berlin, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      John N. Opie, for the defendant in error.
   Fauntleroy, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to a judgment of the hustings court of Staunton, rendered at its July term, 1889, in an action at law, wherein the Western Lunatic Asylum of Virginia is plaintiff, and Abner Shacklett is defendant. The proceeding was by notice and motion to recover $67.50, with interest thereon from November 1st, 1888, and the judgment is for that sum; which amount in controversy being below the jurisdiction of this court, and the record showing no constitutional question involved, puts the case out of appellate consideration here, and the writ of error must be dismissed as having been improvidently awarded.

Writ of error dismissed.  