
    STEWART v. MERCANTILE BANK & TRUST CO.
    (No. 9722.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Balias.
    Feb. 20, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied March 6. 1926.
    Writ of Error Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction May 5, 1926.)
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    I. Appeal and error c©=51 — Amount asserted in cross-action to which exception was sustained, and under which no evidence was introduced, held not “in controversy.”
    Amount asserted in cross-action to which 'exception was sustained, and under which no evidence was introduced, held not “in controversy” either in trial court or on appeal, where no error was assigned to court’s action in sustaining exception.
    2. Appeal and error <©3=46.
    Court of Civil Appeals has no jurisdiction of appeal, where it affirmatively appears that amount in controversy does not exceed $109.
    Appeal from Dallas County Court; Wyley. Bell, Judge.
    Action between J. P. Stewart and the Mercantile Bank & Trudfc Company. Erom the judgment the former appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    G. H. Crane, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Holland, Bartlett, Thórnton & Chilton, and Oscar D. Montgomery, all of Dallas, for ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss granted.

On Motion for Rehearing.

JONES, C. J.

At a former day of this term, appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal was granted. The ground of the motion was that the amount in controversy did not exceed $100, this being a suit to recover on an alleged debt of less than $100 and to foreclose a chattel mortgage on an automobile of the value of $100.

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing, claiming that, in the court below, he filed a cross-action for damages against appellee in the sum of $150. It appears from the agreed case that an exception was sustained to the cross-action asserted by appellant and said claim was dismissed by the trial court. No evidence was offered on said cross-action in the trial court, and appellant has assigned no error on the court’s action in sustaining an exception to his pleading. The character of the claim is not shown ■ by this record. It therefore affirmatively appears that the amount asserted in this cross-action was hot in controversy in the lower court and is not in controversy on this appeal. Bledsoe v. G. C. & S. P. Ry. Co., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 280, 25 S. W. 314; Watson v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 1170, Connor v. Sewell, 90 Tex. 275, 38 S. W. 35, Smith v. Wilson, 91 Tex. 503, 44 S. W. 672; Martin v. Jeffries (Tex. Civ. App.) 153 S. W. 658; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Arnold, 97 Tex. 365, 77 S. W. 249, 79 S. W. 8; Continental Casualty Co. v. Morris, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 102 S. W. 773.

As it affirmatively appears that the amount in controversy does not exceed $100, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      tg^oFor other cases see game topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     