
    RUDOLPH v. FISHER.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    March 23, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied April 27, 1912.)
    Appeal and Eebor (§ 544) — Review — Statement oe Facts — Bills op Exception.
    Where the record contained neither statement of facts nor bill of exceptions, and plaintiff’s petition showed that the notes sued on were past due when the suit was brought, objection that the judgment was rendered in an action prematurely brought was unsustainable.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2412, 2415, 2417-2420, 2422-2428, 2449, 2478, 2479; Dec. Dig. § 544.]
    Error from Sherman County Court; U. J. Ingham, Judge.
    Action by N. W. Fisher against C. F. Rudolph. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    ’ C. F. Rudolph, of Stratford, pro se. Tatum & Tatum, of .Dalhart, for defendant in error.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HALL, J.

Plaintiff in error brings this ease before us upon two assignments; one complaining of the trial court’s action in overruling his application for a continuance and the other asserting that a judgment has been rendered upon an action prematurely brought.

The record contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception. The plaintiff’s petition in the court below shows that the notes declared upon were past due at the time the suit was instituted, and in the present state of the record we can but conclude that there was no error committed by the trial court.

Appellee insists that the writ of error sued out is manifestly for delay, and, after' fully investigating the record, we are of the opinion that his contention should be sustained, and the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages for delay.

Judgment affirmed.  