#### Mattingly v. Crowley.

(November Term, 1864.)

Appeal—when it would lie pHor to the act of 1865. At the November Term, 1864, it was held that an appeal would not lie from a judgment in replevin, in favor of the defendant, and awarding a return of the property, because, in such case, the judgment did not amount to twenty dollars, nor relate to a franchise or freehold.*

This was an action of replevin instituted in the Circuit Court of Jasper county by Mattingly against Crowley. The property sued for was taken under the writ, and placed in the possession of the plaintiff. The property was alleged in the plaint to be of the value of twenty-three dollars. A trial was had in the Circuit Court, which resulted in a finding of the issues for the defendant, and a judgment in his favor, ordering a return of the property. Prom that judgment the plaintiff took this appeal.

Mr. B. C. Smith,

for the appellee, moved this court to dismiss the appeal for the want of jurisdiction, insisting that the judgment appealed from did not amount to the sum of twenty dollars, nor any sum, and therefore an appeal would not lie. Citing Rev. Stat. 1845, 420, § 47.

Mr. W. B. Cooper,

for the appellant, said it appeared from the plaint in the record that the value of the property, the return of which was ordered in the judgment appealed from, to be returned, exceeds twenty dollars, and the appeal would lie.

*

Since this decision, the act of February 16,1865 (see 32 Ill. 10), allows appeals to the Supreme Court from all decrees, judgments and orders of inferior courts, from which writs of error may be lawfully prosecuted.

*33Per Curiam :

The judgment below does not amount to the sum of twenty dollars, nor relate to .a franchise or freehold. An appeal, therefore, does not lie.

Appeal dismissed.