On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed his motion for rehearing, and therein complains of the map, which we inserted in our opinion for the purpose of explanation, as not correctly showing the surveys contiguous to the Brown survey, or of those the location of which determines the true location of the south line of the Brown survey. We think the map as it is now in the opinion, same having been slightly changed since the motion for rehearing was filed, is sufficiently correct for the purposes for which we used it, which was to show the surveys the boundary lines of *330which were called for by the surveyor in locating the Brown survey.
Complaint is also made of our finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment rendered.
The proposition in the motion for rehearing upon which appellant relies for such rehearing is that there was no evidence to support the judgment, or the converse, that the undisputed evidence shows the boundary lines to be wliere appellant contends they are, and that such being true, the land in controversy is shown to be a part of the Brown survey and the property of appellant. While we may conclude that the weight and preponderance of the evidence is so against the judgment as to show that such judgment is clearly wrong, we are not authorized to reverse the judgment on that ground in the absence of an assignment attaching it on such ground. The greatest 'possible weight is given on appeal to every fact supporting the verdict and judgment, the court or jury trying the same being the exclusive judges of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of testimony.
Believing that there was evidence to support the judgment as pointed out in our original opinion, the motion for rehearing is overruled.