
    SPAULDING MFG. CO. v. KUYKENDALL.
    (No. 7464.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
    Jan. 22, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1916.)
    Appeal and Error <©=3387 —- Perfection op Appeal — Time—Jurisdiction.
    Where the motion for a new trial was overruled on January 29th, and the court adjourned on the following day, and the time of the filing of the appeal bond was not shown, the clerk’s approval of it on March 3d, more than 30 days after the order overruling the motion, would be assumed to have been on its filing, so that it was not filed in time for perfecting the appeal, which would therefore be dismissed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2064-2070; Dec. Dig. <©=» 387.]
    Appeal from Van Zandt County Court; R. M. Lierley, Judge.
    Action by the Spaulding Manufacturing Company against B. H. Kuykendall. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Dismissed.
    See, also, 191 S. W. 1122.
    L. Davidson and C. L. Stanford, both of Canton, for appellant. T. R. Yantis, of Canton, and W. H. Allen, of Dallas, for appel-lee.
   RAINEY, C. J.

We conclude that this court has no jurisdiction of this case, for the reason that the record shows the appeal was not perfected in time.

It appears from the record before us that the motion for new trial was presented and overruled by the court below on the 29th day of January, 1915, and the court adjourned on the 30th da- of January, 1915. The appeal bond was approved by the clerk on March 3, 1915, which was more than 30 days after the order overruling the motion for a new trial. The time of filing the bond is not shown, but assuming that the clerk’s approval was not made until he received it for filing, as he had no right to do so until then, we conclud'e that the bond was not filed in time for perfecting the appeal.

1 The appeal is therefore dismissed. 
      <®=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     