Appellee’s motion to dismiss granted.

On Motion for Rehearing.

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.