
    SMITH v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BROWNFIELD.
    (No. 2929.)
    Court of Civil Appeals of. Texas. Amarillo.
    Dec. 7, 1927.
    Appeal and error <&wkey;544( I) — Assignments relative to refusal to sustain, exception to plea and admission of testimony cannot be reviewed, in absence of statement of facts.
    ' Assignment of error in trial court’s refusal to sustain special exception to plea of false and fraudulent representations, and in refusing to exclude certain testimony of appellee, cannot be reviewed, where there is no statement of facts in record.
    Error from Terry County Court; H. R. Winston, Judge. .
    Action by Ben H. Smith against the First National Bank of Brownfield. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    R. L. Graves, of Brownfield, for plaintiff in error.
    Joe J. McGowan, of Brownfield, for defendant' in error.
   JACKSON, J.

This ease is presented to the court by plaintiff in error, herein called appellant, who seeks a reversal of the judgment rendered against him in the county court of Terry county, Texas, and in favor of the First National Bank, defendant in error, herein called appellee.

The appellant sues on a written contract, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of his petition, for the recovery of $156. The appellee answered by general demurrer, special exception; general denial, and pleaded false and fraudulent representations, which induced it to execute the contract.

In response to the one issue submitted, the jury found, in effect, that appellee was induced to execute the contract by false and fraudulent representations. The appellant assigns as error the action of the court in refusing to sustain a special exception urged by him to the plea of false and fraudulent repre-

sentations, and to the action of the court in refusing to exclude the testimony of appellee on the issue of fraud; hut, as there is no statement of facts in the record, these assignments cannot be reviewed. Renfro v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 237; C., R. I. & C. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 100 g. W. 800; Ward v. Graham (Tex. Oiv. App.) 224 S. W. 294.

There is no fundamental error apparent of record, and the judgment is affirmed,  