In this case Charles O. Austin, appellant, sued appellees George Phillips, William E. St. John, and others to recover on the guaranty of a note for $815. The note was executed by H. R. Williams and guaranteed by the named defendants and others. There was a former appeal of this case (Phillips v. Chapman [Tex. Civ. App.] 288 S. W. 1100), and a judgment prior to the one here appealed from disposed of the numerous other parties signing the instrument of guaranty, and this litigation is solely between the named defendants and the commissioner, who is the owner of the note and whose right to sue thereon is not .questioned.
The trial was before the court without a jury. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendants. The record contains a statement of facts as well as findings of fact and conclusions of law.
To plaintiff’s petition, the defendants presented, among other defenses, the plea of non est factum, plea of limitation, and special plea of alteration. The plea of alteration was to the effect that, if the named defendants executed the guaranty at all, the date of such execution was February 11,1920, and not February 25, 1920 as contended by the plaintiff), and that since its execution the date of the instrument of guaranty had been thus materially altered by some one unknown to the defendants and without their knowledge or consent. By substantially the same allegations it is charged that the date of the note had been In like manner altered without the knowledge or authority of Williams, the maker, or these defendants, and February 25 substituted for February 11. The petition declares on the guaranty as of date February 25, 1920, and, if the true date of that instrument’s execution and delivery be February 11, then this suit was effectively barred by limitation eight days before its filing. The obligations under both the note and. the guaranty would have been so barred.
The defendant’s special plea of alteration of the instruments after execution and without their consent does not put in issue the original execution of the note or guaranty, even, though the answer denies, as in this case, the execution of said instruments. Muckleroy v. Bethany, 27 Tex. 551; Wells v. Moore, 15 Tex. 521; Moore v. Orgain (Tex. Civ. App.) 291 S. W. 583.
The court’s findings material to the issues presented are:
“(5) I further find that the instrument in writing that was executed by W. F. St. John and George Phillips, above referred to, shows upon its face and it is apparent upon its face that it originally bore date of February 11, 1920, and that subsequent to such date it had been changed, as is apparent upon its face, from February 11 to February 25, 1920, and that subsequent to such date it had been changed, as is apparent upon its face, from February 11 to February 25, 1920, and I further find from the other testimony adduced that such change in said date was made.
“(6) I find that the note introduced in evidence was originally dated February 11, 1920, and that it is patent upon its face that said date had been changed from February 11, 1920, to February 25, 1920.'
“(7) I further find that the plaintiff herein has failed to prove by sufficient and satisfactory evidence the circumstances attending the change of such written instruments.
“(8) I further find that such change in said instrument was made without the notice and consent of the defendant George Phillips or any representative of George Phillips.
“(9) I further find that at the time W. A. Martin, George Phillips, and L. A. Hightower executed the above instrument, generally designated as a ‘guaranty,’ that they never noticed or observed that the date of February 11, 1920, had been changed to February 25, 1920. I further find that suit was originally filed in this court June 9, 1924.”
These findings, as to the time of the alleged alteration with respect to the time said defendants executed the instrument, are not as definite and specific as they should be, but the plaintiff made no objection to them on that ground, nor did he ask for additional findings more specific in that particular. In this state of the record it is our duty to consider not only the facts expressly found, but such as are implied from those expressly found. Interpreting the court’s findings by the aid of this principle, we construe the same to show a finding that the alteration occurred after the execution of the instrument by the defendants and without the authority of the defendants.
Further, there is no assignment properly attacking the court’s findings on the ground of the insufficiency of the' testimony to support the conclusions. In the absence of such assignments specifically calling our at*226tention to such lack of support, if any, in the testimony, we are not called upon to search the statement of facts.
The alterations alleged present these features: On the instrument of guaranty declared upon as of date February 25, 1920, the 25 was written above the 11 that had been crossed out. In the case of the note the date February 11th had been converted into February 25th by making the first “1” into a “2“ and the second “1” into a “5.” The alterations were apparently not in the handwriting of the one who prepared the body of each instrufnent.
In view of the court’s findings, the record before us presents a suit based upon an instrument bearing a material alteration apparent upon its face, and the court has found: (1) That such alteration was made; (2) that it was made subsequent to the execution thereof by the defendants; and (3) without authority. Clearly, the opinion of our Supreme Court in Kalteyer et al. v. Mitchell et al., 102 Tex. 390, 117 S. W. 792,132 Am. St. Rep. 889, rules this case and- requires its affirmance.
The appellant’s assignments are overruled, and, for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.