Case Name: YEAGER v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-01-21
Citations: 218 S.W. 3
Docket Number: No. 6138
Parties: YEAGER v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 218
Pages: 3–4

Head Matter:
YEAGER v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.
(No. 6138.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Jan. 21, 1920.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1920.)
Appeal and Error <®=>45 — Court op Civil Appeals without jurisdiction op appeal INVOLVING LESS THAN $100 IN ABSENCE OP ALLEGATION OF TORTIOUS ACT.
The Court of Civil Appeals is without appellate jurisdiction of the appeal of plaintiff from an adverse judgment in his action against a railroad to recover less than $100, one-half of the fee paid an attorney in a personal injury case whom plaintiff had assisted, in the absence of allegation of-unlawful or tortious act by defendant railroad.
Appeal from McLennan County Court; James P. Alexander, Judge.
Suit by James E. Yeager against the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
James E. Yeager, of Waco, in pro. per.
A. P. McCormick, of Waco, for appellee.

Opinion:
JENKINS, J.
This suit was for the recovery of one-half of the amount of a fee collected by- Hanson Womack as attorney for one Gardner. Gardner had a claim for damages against appellee, which appellee settled for $875. Womack was entitled to and received from Gardner $87.50 for collecting same. Womack had agreed to divide his fee with appellant, for assisting him in' the matter. This he failed to do. Appellant sued appellee for one-half of said $87.50, on the theory that it should not have paid same to Wom-ack, but should have paid it to appellant.
In addition to seeking to recover one-half of $87.50, he alleged that, in settling with Womack, appellee conspired with him to heat appellant out of his fee, to appellant's damage in the sum of $100. No unlawful or tor-tious act on the part of appellee is alleged. Such being the case, this was a suit for an amount less than $100, for which reason this court is without appellate jurisdiction. Gibson v. Hotel, 198 S. W. 413.
Eor the reason stated, the appeal herein is dismissed.
Dismissed.
<®=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numberea Digests and Indexes