
    SIBLEY v. CONTINENTAL SUPPLY CO.
    (Motion No. 7479, on Application No. 15077.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    Eeb. 9, 1927. Rehearing Denied
    March 9, 1927.)
    1. Pleading <&wkey;111 — Controverting affidavit, filed over 5 days after appearance day on which plea of privilege was filed, though within same term, is too late (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 2007).
    Under Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 2007, controverting affidavit, filed more than five days after appearance day on which plea of privilege was filed, though within same term, is too late.
    2. Pleading <&wkey;l 11 — Defendant cannot challenge right to determine issue made by plea of privilege and controverting - affidavit after agreeing thereto in writing.
    Defendant cannot challenge court’s right to determine issue made by plea of privilege and controverting affidavit after entering into written agreement that court should vacate judgment against him, and thereafter determine such question.
    Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.
    Suit by the Continental Supply Company against S. W. Sibley and others. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (290 S. W. 769), and the defendant named applies for a writ of error.
    Writ denied.
    Stennis & Stennis, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
    Eischer & Fischer, of Wichita Falls, for defendant in error.
   On Motion for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error denied. [1, 2] The writ of error in this case was properly refused regardless of the erroneous construction placed by the Court of Civil Appeals on article 2007 of the Revised Statutes. Plaintiff in error could not be heard to challenge the right of the court to determine the issue made by a plea of privilege and a controverting affidavit, after entering into an agreement in writing that the court should vacate a certain judgment against him, and thereafter hear and determine the question presented by the plea and the controverting affidavit thereto.

Motion' for rehearing is therefore overruled.  