subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a), because without the ability to prove a necessary element of that statutory claim, Wall had no longer asserted a claim that caused the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. However, as Wall correctly points out in his brief, his claim under §§ 39-65-10, et seq. was simultaneously replaced with a claim under S.C.Code Ann. §§ 41-10-10, et seq., which permits a court to award treble damages to an employee who has not been justly compensated, thereby increasing the amount in controversy from the unpaid commissions of $35,000 to $105,000. Thus, the amount in controversy requirement was met and subject matter jurisdiction was maintained. See Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 202, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267 (1933) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to find that the treble
holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction holding that it is proper for a district court to considered sic the possibility that an appeal may result in the award of attorneys fees in determining the appeal bond amount