On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon the motions for rehearing filed by parties on both sides of this controversy, we find error assigned to the same matter by all.
The appellants make assignment as follows : ,
“The Court erred in' not making any finding or rendering any judgment disposing of the issue as to the personal ■property recovered from the Fenoglio lease, the judgment of the trial court having vested title thereto to the plaintiff, Bluff Creek-Oil Company, and no disposition having been made of appellants’ claim therefor.”
Appellee Bluff Creek Oil Company makes assignment as follows:
“The error of the Court of Civil Appeals in, failing to affirm the judgment of ;the trial' court in. favor of Bluff Creek Oil Company against all Appellants for title, and possession to property, removed from the. Fenoglio lease, and for the value of equipment converted in.the sum Of $3,957!77 as" set out' in the judgment.”
In .our original opinion, we find .appended to the paragraph giving the reason -the Fenoglio ¡lease is involved in, the -appeal our statement to the effect; that there was .a part, of the judgment which was .entered ■by the trial1 court which extended against all three appellants because of' conversion of property and equipment from that lease. The language was inserted as it was and at the place where it was inserted because from our understanding of the appellants’ points of error, there was no error assigned to the judgment rendered by the lower court in this particular. That being true, we had no occasion to pass upon any point or to belabor the question in our opinion. Furthermore, if the appellants’ points on appeal could be so construed as having embraced complaint as now made upon motion for rehearing, such would have properly been considered by us as waived in any event, since it was not briefed.
All motions for rehearing are refused.