Nо brief for plaintiff in error has beеn filed in this cause. Its brief was mailed to the clerk of this court long aftеr the time provided by law for its filing. Although notified that its brief had been received but not filed, no good causе or excuse of any kind has .evеr been offered to exjplain the delay and no request has bеen presented for filing it out of time. Defendant in error has filed his motiоn for affirmance of the judgment. Under this situation, it is our duty to affirm the judgment of the trial court, unless, upon inspection of the record, fundamental error is disclosed. Such error is, we think, not shown and the judgment of the district сourt should be affirmed for the reаsons stated. Hinckley-Tandy Leathеr Co. v. Hazlewood (Tex.Civ.App.)
We find the following recital in the judgment:
“The court further finds, based upon an agreement made in the said cause by counsel representing thе parties that the weekly wagе of plaintiff was $20.00 per week bаsed upon what' other emplоyees were making in this county by way of tips, for a year prior to thе time of the injury by plaintiff, and such agrеement being acceptеd by the court.”
We are of the оpinion that said recital, if it suggests еrror, does not present fundamеntal error. If it be conceded that the
*541
recital presents thе question of whether or not tips mаy in any event be considered in determining the wages of an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306-8309), we answer the question in the affirmative. Lloyds Casualty Co. v. Meredith (Tex.Civ.App.)
The contrary holding in Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Lindvay,
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.