
    MOORE v. DENMAN.
    (No. 1871.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    Dec. 13, 1917.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1917.)
    Appeal and Error cg=j547(1) — Overrulinu Motion for Continuance — Failure to Present in Bill of Exceptions.
    Where the ruling of the trial court in overruling motion to continue made by defendant when the cause was reached for trial ⅛ not presented in a bill of exceptions, as required by rule 55 (142 S. W. xxi) for the government of dis. trict and county courts, the Court of Civil Appeals cannot revise it. .
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
    Suit by J. J. Denman against J. A. Moore. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Seb P. Caldwell, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant. J. M. Burford, of Mt. Pleasant, and Chas. Kassel, of Pt. Worth, for appellee.
   WILLSON, O. J.

Tlie suit was by appellee to recover on promissory notes made by appellant and to foreclose tbe lien of a deed by which he conveyed certain land to a trustee to secure the payment of the notes. The appeal is from a judgment in appellee’s favor for $12,089.88, the sum found to be due on the notes, and foreclosing the lien created by the deed in trust.

The contention made here is that the judgment is erroneous, and therefore should be reversed, because of the action of the trial court in overruling the motion to continue it made by appellant when the cause was reached for trial. As the ruling complained of is not presented in a bill of exceptions as required by rule 65 (142 S. W. xxi) for the government of district and county courts, this court cannot revise it. Trabue v. Cook, 124 S. W. 455; Barton v. Ash, 154 S. W. 608; Albrecht v. Lignoski, 154 S. W. 354; Cranfill v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 143 S. W. 233; Darby v. White, 165 S. W. 481.

The judgment is affirmed. • 
      <g=^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     