
    Baldwin vs Farris.
    Opinion Delivered June 12, 1899.
    
      U. S. Commissioner — Attachment Appeal.
    
    No appeal can be taken from the judgment of a United States commissioner quashing an attachment and dismissing the actionj as there was no judgment exceeding $20.00.
    Appeal from the United States Court for the Southern District.
    Constantine B. Kilgore, Judge.
    Attachment by D. M. Farris against F. D. Baldwin in a United States commissioner’s court. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the district court, and from a judgment of that court for plaintiff, defendant and the surety on his forthcoming bond appeal.
    Reversed and dismissed.
    This action was brought by the plaintiff and appellee, D. M. Farris, on November 19, 1896, before a United States commissioner, at Chickasha, in the Southern district, against the appellant F, D. Baldwin, to recover upon a judgment rendered in his favor by the probate court of Oklahoma Territory, against the said F. D. Baldwin, for the sum of $128, and $73.60 costs. An affidavit and bond for attachment were filed at the same time, and on the 20th day of November, 1896, the writ of summons and writ of attachment were personally served upon the defendant and appellant F. D. Baldwin, and a levy made under the writ of attachment. On January 4, 1897, a trial was had before the United States commissioner, all the parties being present, and a judgment was rendered by the commissioner, in favor of the defendant F. D. Baldwin, quashing the writ of attachment and dismissing the action, from which judgment the plaintiff, D. M. Farris, appellee here, took an appeal to the United States court at Chickasha, Southern district, where, at the trial, a judgment was rendered in his favor for $196.-60, and costs, and sustaining the attachment. From this judgment the defendant, F. D. Baldwin, and the surety on his forthcoming bond, prayed and were allowed an appeal to this court.
    
      Charles M. Feehheimer and F. A. Fisher, for appellants.
    P, B. Monieal and It. W Shepard, for appellee.
   Thomas, J.

Numerous errors are alleged by counsel for appellant in their motion for a new trial, bill of exceptions, and brief, but we are confronted with the inquiry as to whether or not the plaintiff, appellee here, D. M.' Farris, could legally appeal from the judgment of the United States commissioner, quashing his attachment and dismissing his action; and, if not, the United States court for the Southern district, at Chickasha, did not have jurisdiction of this cause. Section 4 of the act of congress approved March 1, 1895, (28 Stat. 695 ), relating to the Indian Territory, reads as follows: “Provided, that no appeal shall be allowed in civil cases where the amount of the judgment, exclusive of costs, does not exceed twenty dollars. ” This refers to all civil cases tried by United States commissioners in the Indian Territory, and no appeal is allowed in such cases where the judgment, exclusive of costs, does not exceed $20. This question was presented to this court at the present term in a similar case, — that of Hardware Co. vs Brittain, reported in 2 Ind. Ter. 242. Inasmuch as the judgment of the United States commissioner in this cause was not for a sum exceeding the sum of $20, exclusive of costs, the United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory was without jurisdiction, and its judgment is reversed, and the case dismissed. Reversed and dismissed.

Springer, C. J., and Clayton and Townsend, JJ., concur.  