¶1 Tbe 'appeal was not docketed in tbe time required by law, and was properly dismissed (Davenport v. Grissom, 113 N. C., 38; Peltz v. Bailey, 157 N. C., 167), unless tbe agreement entered into between tbe parties is a waiver of tbe right to dismiss, and we think it cannot have tbis effect.
¶2 It does not purport to deal with tbe right of appeal or tbe time of docketing, and simply provides for tbe custody of tbe property pending tbe appeal.
¶3 Tbe motion to dismiss tbe action upon tbe ground tbat tbe value of tbe property is more than $50 cannot be allowed.
¶4 Tbe value is stated in tbe summons to be less than $50, and it does not seem tbat tbis was controverted before tbe justice, and tbe justice has rendered judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff.
¶5 Tbe presumption is tbat tbe judgment is valid, and tbe facts necessary to sustain it are presumed to exist.
¶6 Again, tbe whiskey has no market value in Wilmington, because it cannot be legally sold there, and in tbe absence of a market value, and in tbe face of tbe statement in tbe summons and tbe judgment of tbe justice, tbis Court must decline to bold tbat its intrinsic value is generally known, or that tbe Court has any special expert knowledge upon tbe subject.
¶7 Affirmed.