Baldwin v. Farris

Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

Baldwin v. Farris

51 S.W. 1077, 2 Indian Terr. 438, 1899 Indian Terr. LEXIS 32

CourtCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

DecidedJune 12, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 S.W. 1077 (Baldwin v. Farris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baldwin v. Farris, 51 S.W. 1077, 2 Indian Terr. 438, 1899 Indian Terr. LEXIS 32 (Conn. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [440]*440cause. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 [440]*440cause. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 S.W. 1077, 2 Indian Terr. 438, 1899 Indian Terr. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-farris-ctappindterr-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack