¶1The events leading to this controversy, in short, are these: R. L. Adams engaged in highway or road contracting work, became indebted to the State National Bank of Grand Saline, Van Zandt County, and being pressed for payment, applied to C. A. Glover for financial assistance; the result being that, Mr. Glover took up and extended Adams’ indebtedness at the bank, over $2,000, to secure which, Adams executed a chattel mortgage on certain personal property, consisting of livestock, teams, wagons, graders, fresnoes, harness, etc.; the form of security later was changed to that of a bill of sale, under which the chattels, ostensibly, were sold and transferred by Adams to Glover, but, admittedly being for the security of debt, the instrument was simply a mortgage. It was understood, in view of the financial arrangements the parties entered into, that similar properties subsequently acquired by Adams in the prosecution of road work would be considered as included in the written instrument and held as security for whatever indebtedness Adams might be due and owing Glover.
¶2In addition to the original transaction, Glover agreed to finance Adams on substantially the following plan: When necessary for Adams to pay for labor, teams, tools, or other indebtedness incurred in the prosecution of road work, he would draw checks on the State National Bank of Grand Saline, in favor of the debtor, and, from time to time, Glover would pay these checks and take possession of same. The bank was not expected to, nor did it, pay the checks or endorse the same to Glover, as Adams had no deposit there, nor did he have any arrangement with the bank to pay same; seemingly, the bank acted merely as a clearing house, holding such of Adams’ checks as came in, until they were taken up by Mr. Glover. The parties began operations under this plan in 1928, and continued until the spring of 1935, when Glover refused to proceed further, but, in the meantime, he had cashed checks amounting, in the aggre*317gate, to over $100,000; however, from time to time, Adams had made payments to Glover, leaving $24,959.04 unpaid at the time their relations were disrupted.
¶3Glover instituted the present suit, alleging the facts just stated, prayed for recovery of the personal property involved, on the theory that he owned same, under and by virtue of the bill of sale; and, in the alternative, if the bill of sale should be construed to be a mortgage, prayed judgment for debt and foreclosure.
¶4Among other defenses, Adams plead the statutes of two and four years’ limitation, and specially plead settlement and satisfaction of the indebtedness, alleging in this respect that, on April 14, 1937, he conveyed to Glover certain real estate situated in Van Zandt County, Texas, in full satisfaction of his claims and liens; that Glover accepted the conveyance and took possession of the properties, as full and final settlement between the parties.
¶5On proper submission, the jury found' that the bill of sale heretofore referred to was intended by the parties to operate as a lien on the personal property to secure Adams’ indebtedness to Glover; also found that Glover accepted the deed from Adams, conveying certain real estate situated in Van Zandt County, in full settlement of the indebtedness involved in the present controversy. These findings, being sustained by evidence, are adopted as our conclusions of fact on the respective issues.
¶6Based upon the findings of the jury, the court rendered judgment that Glover take nothing, from which he appealed, and presents but one assignment of error, that is, that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the checks drawn by Adams and taken up by Glover, in accordance with their agreement.
¶7The checks were exhibited in court and Adams admitted signing each of them. There was no controversy either as to the existence or the amount of Adams’ indebtedness to Glover at the time their relations were disrupted, hence the several checks, as evidence, could only have been material on the issue of limitation; but, as that issue was not submitted, and the jury having found that the parties agreed upon and consummated a full settlement before the institution of the suit, the question of limitation became immaterial, and error, if any, committed by the court in refusing to admit the checks in evidence, in our opinion, was harmless. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
¶8Affirmed.