
    HAGLER vs. PARGOUD ET AL.
    
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE SEVENTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    The Supreme Court can entertain jurisdiction of a cause only where the matter in dispute exceeds three hundred dollars.
    The plaintiff sues on an attachment bond, executed by the defendant in a former suit against the present plaintiff. He claims two hundred dollars as the penalty, on the ground that the attachment had been wrongfully sued out; and twenty-five dollars paid his counsel; twenty-five dollars travelling expenses; and fifty dollars for his trouble, &c. in attending the suit.
    The defendant admitted the execution of the bond, and that the attachment was set aside, but not on the ground that there was no cause for it. He pleaded a general denial, and that the plaintiff had sustained no injury.
    The district judge on hearing the testimony gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for thirty dollars.
    The defendant appealed.
    
      Winn, for defendant and appellant.
    1. The present defendant obtained judgment in the attachment suit against the present plaintiff, for his debt, but the attachment was dismissed by reason of the insufficiency of the oath or affidavit.
    2. The appellant now contends that a judgment of dismissal or non-suit is not sufficient on which to base the plea in bar of res judicata.
    
    3. That although the attachment may have been dissolved, the present defendant may show in this action that he had good reasons to apply for an attachment, and if he does he cannot be mulcted in damages. 6 Mar. JV. S. 238. 8 Ibid 484.
    
      The supreme court cau enter-t!'irl jurisdiction of a cause only SpSeexceeds doink hundrod
    4. No damages are shown to have resulted from the ° attachment.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit on an attachment bond, and tbe plaintiff claims the amount of the penalty, which is two hundred dollars; twenty-five dollars for a lawyer’s fee; twenty-five dollars for travelling expenses, and fifty dollars for loss of time and detention. These aggregated sums form that of 00 ° three hundred dollars. The judgment appealed from is for J ° 1 J-thirty. The constitution has confined our jurisdiction to cases where the object in dispute exceeds in value the sum of three hundred dollars.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the appeal be dismissed at the appellant’s cost.  