I concur with the majority in the disposition made of this case for the reasons they have assigned except for their failure to pass on the question of whether or not the address, to wit: “Butler Brothers Box 2339 Dallas 1, Texas” found on the reverse side of the two exhibits offered in evidence was to be considered a part of the said exhibits, which conferred venue in Dallas County. This case is before us by stipulation of the parties, showing exhibits B and C in evidence before the trial court. We have no statement of facts before us. There are no findings or conclusions of the trial court in the record before us. The record does not disclose who introduced in evidence the exhibits in question or that any limitations were placed upon them or any part'of them when they were introduced. The instruments were addressed to “Butler Brothers” on the front side thereof. They were executed by appellant himself, showing at the bottom of the front page of each instrument that the reverse side thereof was made a part of each instrument. Appellant recognized the reverse 'side of each instrument as a part of it by writing thereon a list of the names of the parties he had previously dealt with. One of the said names listed on Exhibit B was “Butler Brothers' Dallas.” The list therein given on each instrument was on the same side of the instrument bearing the address to wit: “Butler Brothers Box 2339 Dallas 1, Texas.” All of each exhibit appears to be in evidence and I find nothing in the record that indicates that the address in question on the reverse side of each exhibit should not be considered a part of it.
In a case such as this all facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment, which is presumed to be correct unless the record discloses the contrary to be true. It is my opinion we must presume that the trial court found under the record before it that appellant signed the exhibits in question addressed to “Butler Brothers” on the front side and on the reverse side of each shows the address to be “Butler Brothers Box 2339 Dallas 1, Texas” and that he agreed therein to make “All Bills Payable in Dallas.” Such being true it is my conclusion that venue was established in Dallas County according to the rules of law approved in the case of Heid Brothers, Inc., v. Smiley, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 952, as well as the case of Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610, cited in the majority opinion.
PER CURIAM.
After writing the opinion and the concurring opinion in the above entitled and numbered cause, we certified two ques*942tions to the Supreme Court. On February 8, 1950, the Supreme Court answered the first question. It held that since Exhibit B shows oil its face to have been executed in Texas, the words “All bills payable in Dallas” are sufficient to designate Dallas as a definite place in Dallas County, Texas, and are sufficient, within the meaning of Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, to place the venue of this suit in Dallas County. The Supreme Court declined to answer the second certified question but ordered that this cause be proceeded with in accordance with its answer to the first question. Therefore, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, we accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court