Case ID: sw_157/html/0960-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HALL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST NAT. BANK OF FT. WORTH v. BEACH et al.
    (No. 432.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    Feb. 20, 1913.)
    Appeal and Eeeoe (§ 47) — Jtjbisdiotion— Amount in Conteoveesy.
    AVhere plaintiff sued for only $100 and waived a provision of a contract for attorney’s fees, the amount in controversy was insufficient to sustain the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 202-225; Dec. Dig. §47.]
    Appeal from Hardeman County Court; W. S. Bannister, Judge.
    Action between the First National Bank of Ft. W'orth and D. B. Beach and others. From a judgment in favor of the latter, the former appeals.-
    Dismissed.
    W. T. Perkins, of Quanah, and Jno. D. Lester, of Ohillicothe, for appellant. Cecil Storey, of A^ernon, and W. O. Scott, of Chil-licothe, for appellees.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HALL, J.

It is clear from the record that plaintiff sued for only $100 and waived the provision, for attorney’s fees; therefore the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.