
    Henry Seelye v. Eliza A. Seelye.
    
      Filed at Ottawa October 31, 1892.
    
    Appeals and writs op error—when appeal lies from the Appellate Court—separate maintenance. No appeal lies from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the decree of the circuit court in a suit by a. wife for separate maintenance, where the sum decreed the wife is less-than $1000,—following Umlauf v. Umlauf, 103 Ill. 651. In Jenkins v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 134, and in Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510, the question, of jurisdiction was not raised or decided.
    Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall county; the Hon. T. M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. Winslow Evans, and Ered. S. Potter, for the appellant.
    Mr. T. E. Clover, and Messrs. Barnes & Barnes, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam :

This is a proceeding, under the statute, to recover separate maintenance. The amount decreed to be paid' is less then $1000, and the facts are precisely the same as they were in Umlauf v. Umlauf, 103 Ill. 651. Eor the reasons given in that case the appeal must be dismissed. In Jenkins v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 134, and in Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510, the question of jurisdiction was not called to the attention of the court, and no decision was made in either of those cases in that respect.

Appeal dismissed.  