On Rehearing
Appellee says that since appellant did not except to the trial court’s findings of fact we must conclude that the findings are correct and be bound by them.
We are unable to agree with ap-pellee. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and a statement of facts was prepared and sent to us as part of the record, and was considered by us. Appellee admits that the facts disclosed by the record are undisputed. Our Supreme Court has held that when a statement of facts appears in the record, the findings of fact are not conclusive on appeal, though the findings were not excepted to by appellant. Swanson v. Swanson, 148 Tex. 600, 228 S.W.2d 156. This Court has heretofore on several occasions followed the Supreme Court’s holding. Galloway v. Nichols, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W.2d 850; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Har*659rison, Tex.Civ.App., 277 S.W.2d 256; and Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. White, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W.2d 441.
Appellee further says that we are entirely inconsistent in our reasoning that the appellant is relying on Mrs. Finberg’s contractual and statutory liability as an original and primary debtor by reason of the overdraft of her account. Appellee asks, “If such be the case, what is the basis of the recovery that the appellant sought and received against Mr. Finberg?”
By way of answer we point out that (1) Mr. Finberg did not sign and he was not a party to the signature card or the deposit contract with the Bank. Mrs. Finberg did sign both documents. Whatever may have been the grounds for holding Mr. Finberg liable, we see no inconsistency in holding Mrs. Finberg liable on her contract; (2) Mr. Finberg admitted that he owed “someone $250.00 for that check,” and that he had not paid anyone for it. He did not appeal from the judgment rendered against him in favor of the Bank. Therefore the grounds of his liability are not before us for consideration.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.