
    TEXAS SEED & FLORAL CO. v. CHICAGO SET & SEED CO.
    (No. 1457.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    May 21, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied May 27, 1915.)
    Appeal and Error <@=>387 — -Filing Bonds-Time — Dismissal.
    Where judgment was rendered February 18, 1914, by a district court, at a term thereof, which, as authorized by Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 30, subd. 68, continued more than eight weeks until May 2, 1914, and notice of appeal was given April 28, 1914, but no appeal bond was filed with the clerk of the court below within 20 days thereafter, as required by article 2084, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction to hear and determine it.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2064-2070; Dec. Dig. <@=> 387.]
    Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; J. C. Roberts, Judge.
    Action between the Texas Seed & Floral Company against the Chicago Set & Seed Company. Judgment for the latter, and the former appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Short & Feild, of Dallas, for appellant. Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, for appellee.
   WILLSON, C. J.

The appeal is from a judgment rendered February 18, 1914, by a district (the sixty-eighth) court of Dallas county, at a term thereof which, as authorized by law (article 30, subd. 68, Vernon’s Statutes), continued more than eight weeks, to wit, from the first Monday in February to May 2, 1914. Notice of the appeal was given April 28, 1914, when appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. As appellants principal office was in Dallas county, it must, to confer jurisdiction of the appeal on this court, have filed an appeal bond with the clerk of the court below within 20 days after it gave the notice. Article 2084, Vernon’s Statutes. This it did not do. The bond was not filed until May 19, 1914. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed because this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine it. Dilworth v. Steves, 174 S. W. 279; Bank v. Carper, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 334, 67 S. W. 188; Hillman v. Galligher, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 41, 113 S. W. 321; Mara v. Branch (Civ. App.) 127 S. W. 1076; Block v. Largent (Civ. App.) 127 S. W. 1076; Railway Co. v. Leach (Civ. App.) 129 S. W. 399.  