Opinion ID: 2428184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: un assigned error

Text: Gifford-Hill's argument all along has been that it was entitled to a summary judgment because limestone should not be taxed at all. It never asserted that too many acres were included; nor did it ever assert that a fact issue exists regarding the extent of Gifford-Hill's quarry, at 827, the very basis on which the Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. This argument was introduced for the first time while the case was on appeal to this court. Thus, in my view, it was improper for the Court to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on an argument not presented to the lower courts. Even though in Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970), we allowed a broad point of error to preserve all potential challenges to a summary judgment, we did not dispense with the fundamental requirement that grounds for reversal be expressly presented to the trial court in order for them to be considered by the appellate court. See Combs v. Fantastic Homes, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Tex.Civ. AppDallas), writ refd n.r.e., 596 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. 1979).