Court Opinion

ID: 9830748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:26:39.416699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.288806
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We did not discuss appellants’ deed of 1932, referred to in the original opinion, op the ground that they had no assignments of error against this deed. They now assert that our construction of their brief is erroneous, referring us to' their ninth and eleventh assignments of error. We have examined these assignments carefully and they make no reference whatever to the deed of 1932. If by their general terms these assignments relate to this deed and also to the deed referred to and discussed in the original opinion, which is now appellants’ construction of them, they are multifarious and present nothing for review as against either deed.
The motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.