
    WERTH v. TEVIS et al.
    (No. 637.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
    June 23, 1921.)
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court; D. P. Wheat, Judge. Suit by Eva Trevis and husband against Abe Werth. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sam C. Lipscomb, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellees.
   O’QUINN, J.

Suit by Mrs. Eva Tevis, joined pro forma by her husband, O. W. Tevis, against Abe Werth for damages to her automobile. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The following “statement of the nature and result of the suit” is taken from appellant’s brief, which appellees concede to be correct: “Statement of the Nature and Result of the Suit. This suit was instituted by the appellee, Mrs. Eva Tevis, wife of George Tevis, against the appellant, Abe Werth, to recover damages sustained by reason of a collision between an automobile owned by Mrs. Tevis and an automobile owned by the appellant. The collision occurred on Park street in the city of Beaumont, Tex., about August 19, 1919. The evidence showed that Mrs. Tevis’ car was at a standstill on the right-hand side of the street at the time of the collision, and there was no showing of contributory negligence on the part of Mrs. Tevis. The undisputed proof showed that the' appellant, Abe Werth, was the owner of the car which collided with the Tevis car, and that the Werth ear, at the time of the accident, was being driven by Maurice Werth, appellant’s son. In her petition appellee alleged that she was the owner of the injured car in her separate right; that the defendant, by and through his servants and agents, negligently and carelessly ran into and collided with plaintiffs automobile with a truck which defendant was 'operating and causing to be operated at said time, damaging and injuring said car * * * in the sum of $500.” The defendant answered by general denial and plea of not guilty. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for appellee for $300. Motion for new trial was overruled, and appellant brings the case to this court for review. The court did not file his findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor does it appear that he was requested to do so. Appellant presents two assignments of error, both of which assail the court’s rendering judgment for appellee on the ground that the evidence failed to show that the driver of appellant’s ear, Maurice Werth, appellant’s son, was at the time of the collision the agent and servant of appellant and acting in the furtherance of appellant’s business. This is the only contested point in the case. All others are conceded. The court, after hearing all the testimony, found ¿gainst appellant, and we think the record sustains the finding. Dawson v. Bank, 181 S. W. 553; Corrigan v. Goss, 160 S. W. 652; Bank v. Hill, 160 S. W. 1099; Moore v. Robb, 159 S. W. 85; League v. Rice Institute, 152 S. W. 1182. The assignments are overruled. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  