Dickenson. 4 . In our original opinion, we declined to address recovery under the alternative theory of negligent misrepresentation because the parties had not briefed the issues of liability and damages under that theory. See Crum & Forster, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 887 S.W.2d 103, 119-20 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994) (declining to address recovery under alternative theory when parties did not brief issue), vacated pursuant to settlement agreement, Crum and Forster, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 06-92-00100-CV, 1995 WL 273592 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Mar.9, 1995). We did however, observe Schleider would be permitted, in a motion for rehearing, to argue the issues of liability and damages under his alternative theory. See Chesshir v. First State Bank, 620 S.W.2d 101, 101-02 (Tex.1981) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also Boyce Iron Works, Inc. v.
holding that supreme court would not consider issue not mentioned either in petition for rehearing or in petition for certiorari even though matter was argued before it recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal holding court of appeals erred when it did not consider appellees conversion action even though it was urged for the first time on rehearing after appellate court reversed judgment in appellees favor holding that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the health care provider holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal