and applying section 24.007 and Rule 510.3(e)—for lack of appellate jurisdiction. I would dismiss the entire case for lack of appellate jurisdiction. I would not address the Church’s other issues on their merits. I agree with Jelinis and HREAL that we lack appellate jurisdiction over this dispute because Property Code section 24.007 prohibits appeals from the decision of a county court contesting issues of possession when, as here, the disputed premises were used for commercial purposes. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 (West Supp, 2016). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction only to address and rule on our own jurisdiction and to dismiss this appeal. It follows that we do not have jurisdiction to address and rule on the 555, 558-59 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (<HOLDING>). A foreclosure purchaser is entitled to
holding that a franchisor did not waive  his arbitrable claims by prosecuting the unlawful detainer action in california state court because that action involved different issues holding that forcible detainer action is cumulative not exclusive of other remedies party may have so that parties may pursue both forcible detainer action in justice court and suit to quiet title in district court holding that defects in foreclosure process or in title may not be considered in forcible detainer action but may only be pursued in suits for wrongful foreclosure or to set aside substitute trustees deed holding that the remedies are exclusive recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud