Case Name: FIRST NAT. BANK OF FT. WORTH v. BEACH et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-02-20
Citations: 157 S.W. 960
Docket Number: No. 432
Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF FT. WORTH v. BEACH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 157
Pages: 960–960

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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.