On Motion for Rehearing
In their motion for rehearing, appellants argue that, assuming the legal sufficiency of the land description in the deed under which appellees claim and in appel-lees’ petition, there still is no evidence to show that they removed gravel from the described land. In other words, they argue that the described land was not identified on the ground as the land from which they removed gravel. This, however, is not a matter that has been properly presented for review. No point in appellants’ brief raises it specifically, nor does any point assert generally that the judgment is without support in the evidence. We feel constrained to hold, therefore, that ap*924pellants have waived their right to complain of the particular deficiency in the evidence if such there is.
Appellants take the position that the matter is raised by their third and sixth points, but with this we cannot agree. To demonstrate that the points were directed to an entirely different matter, it is only necessary to quote from appellants’ brief the explanation that was given as to why points 1, 2, 3 and 6 were briefed together:
“These 4 points are germane one to the other since they all pertain to the patent fact that the purported description of the land made the basis of ap-pellee’s (Plaintiffs below) suit is utterly void and describes nothing that can be located on the ground and is patently void on the face of it and cannot be aided by extrinsic evidence even if admissible for that purpose and thus cannot be cured by the evidence. Point 1 in this group is based upon the Plea in Abatement as to the utter lack of description and void description relied upon by appellees; Point 2 is based upon the Special Exception which was entered subject to and without waiving the Plea in Abatement and went to the same patent defect in the description. Point 3 is predicated upon appellants’ timely Motion for Judgment on the same ground, the complete lack of description, there being no description either in the pleadings or in the evidence upon which a judgment could be based. Point 6 summarizes the foregoing points; it simply reasserts the above errors of the Court and urges that neither the pleadings nor the evidence are sufficient to support a judgment because of the insufficiency and utter voidness of the purported description of the land and gravel in question. These 4 points, all going to the utter and complete lack of description, are grouped for discussion for the sake of brevity and clarity.”
A rereading of appellants’ brief, in the light of their motion for rehearing, has disclosed that originally we misapprehended the true import of their seventh point. By and under it appellants urge that, aside from the claimed insufficiency of the land description in appellees’ pleadings and deed, and aside from the question as to whether the described land was sufficiently located on the ground, appellees failed to prove title to the land or gravel. In this connection they argue that they themselves were shown to be in possession of the land, claiming under a deed; that appellees were therefore under the burden of showing superior title or right to the land and gravel; and that appellees failed to do this, having introduced in evidence only a deed to themselves from J. J. Denny. There might be merit in appellants’' contention if they themselves had not introduced in evidence the deed from E. W. Love to Homebuilders Investment Company and the deed from the latter company to J. J. Denny, who granted to appellees.. Appellants introduced the deeds unquali-fiedly and are therefore bound by them. Vincent v. Vincent, Tex.Civ.App., 320 S. W.2d 217; Freed v. Bozman, Tex.Civ.App., 304 S.W.2d 235; Lock v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 500; 17 Tex.. Jur., Evidence — Civil Cases, Sec. 419, pp. 928-30, and cases there collated. They did. not subsequently acquire appellees’ title, nor did they prove that they had acquired' a title superior to the one they assisted in, showing to be in appellees. Upon the record as made, therefore, appellants’ seventh, point is without merit, and our original action in overruling it is here reaffirmed’..
The other matters dealt with in appellants’ motion for rehearing are thought to> be sufficiently dealt with in the original! opinion. The motion is overruled.