
    COLUMBIA WEIGHING MACH. CO. v. MARTIN’S PHARMACY NO. 2.
    (No. 2277.)
    Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    April 11, 1929.
    Rehearing Denied May 9, 1929.
    H-ertaberg & Kereheville and Albert C. Buss, all of San Antonio, for appellant.
    S. Benton Davies, of San Antonio, for ap-pellee.
   HIGGINS, J.

This case was tried without a jury. Findings and conclusions by the trial court are not shown by the clerk’s transcript. In the statement of facts appears a statement that, “The court found that there had been no fraud in procuring the execution of the contract.”

The statement of facts is approved by the trial court as the statute requires, and if it had been filed within the time required by law it might possibly be properly considered as a finding upon the issue of fraud tendered by the'answer. But such statement was filed in the trial court long after the time allowed by law for the trial court to file findings and conclusions. Findings and conclusions filed after the time allowed by article 2247, R. S., are nullities, constitute no part- of tbe record, and cannot be considered for any purpose. See cases cited in Taliaferro v. Saer (Tex. Civ. App.) 294 S. W. 653.

In tbe absence of findings it must be assumed all issues of fact raised by tbe pleadings and evidence were found by tbe trial' court in sucb manner as will support tbe judgment.

Upon tbe issue of fraud inducing tbe execution of tbe contract raised by tbe pleadings and evidence, tbe case differs in no material respect from Columbia Weighing Machine Co. v. McElroy’s Drug Store (Tex. Civ. App.) 299 S. W. 351, tbe opinion being by Chief Justice Fly, where tbe present appellant sued upon a contract companion to tbe one here sued upon.

Upon the authority of that case tbe judgment in tbe present appeal should be and is affirmed.  