
    BRACHT v. ADAMSON.
    (No. 6211.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    April 23, 1919.)
    1. Appeal and Error <@=^773(4) —Briefs — Appellant’s Failure to File Brief.
    Where no brief has been filed by appellant, court will consider that appellee’s brief, filed under court rule 42 (142 S. W. xiv), correctly presents ease, and will affirm judgment if it is one that can be affirmed under such presentation of ease.
    2. Courts <s=3472(3) — County Court — Foreclosure — -Jurisdiction of County Court.
    County court has power to foreclose an attachment lien.
    Appeal from District Court, Aransas County; F. G. Chambliss, Judge.
    Suit between A. L. Bracht and I. G. Adam-son. Judgment for latter, and former appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Stevens & Stevens, of Rockport, for appel-lee.
   FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on a contract by which appellant purchased from appellee a carload of green tomatoes, sold to appellant at San Benito, Tex., to be shipped to Rock-port, Tex. The cause was tried by jury, and verdict and judgment rendered for appellee in the sum of $552.74, and an' attachment lien on a tract of land in Cameron county was foreclosed.

Appellant has filed no brief, but appel-lee has filed a brief as permitted by rule 42 (142 S. W. xiv) for Courts of Civil Appeals, and we have considered that brief as giving a correct presentation of the case. We have examined the judgment as copied in the record, and find that it is one that can be affirmed under the presentation made by ap-pellee’s brief. Ball v. Dignowity, 68 S. W. 800.

The authority of the county court to foreclose the attachment lien is settled by the Supreme Court. Hillebrand v. McMahan, 59 Tex. 450; Baker v. Pitluk, 205 S. W. 982.

The judgment is affirmed.  