Court Opinion

ID: 9646313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:56:47.205662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.194613
License: Public Domain

BOND, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I - adhere to our original “Per Curiam Opinion” affirming the judgment of the trial court. In absence of a statement'of facts, or findings by the court,- it cannot be said that the action of the-trial'court in sustaining the defendant’s , {appellee’s) objection to plaintiffs’ (appellants’)' argument, as reflected in the bill of exception, that the City’s acts, in zoning-the property involved for residential purposes and prohibiting its use for business purposes and “in so zoning the property and seeking to pay only its value as residence purposes constituted a fraud upon the part of the *756'City as against these defendants,” present ■error as to warrant a reversal and remand ■of this cause “Because,” forsooth, as stated hy the majority, “of an unsatisfactory .award in the trial court.” Oh appeal; it •could hardly be expected that an adverse judgment, or award, of the trial court would he satisfactory to an appellant.
In the record here there is neither pleading nor evidence, and such is not disclosed by the, bill of exception, that the ■City of Dallas or its Commissioners fraudulently zoned the property involved in this suit; and, indeed, such may not be assumed on appeal. Even if it could be said that there was evidence in support of such baseless charge of fraud, either direct or by inference, such would not be relevant in the .condemnation proceedings instituted by the municipality; and, certainly, it does not behoove an attorney to make such charge in absence of evidence. The trial court, in respect to an orderly and impartial trial, could, with judicial propriety, with or without objection, have stopped such unwarranted imputation of fraud.
Appellants’ points of error, in briefs, by which he seeks a reversal of the judgment of the trial court, are: First point: “The court erred in sustaining objection and instructing the jury not to consider the argument of appellants’ attorney that :the City of - Dallas was guilty of fraud in .zoning appellants’ property which reduced its value and in seeking to condemn the same at the reduced value, because the .action of the court was a comment upon the •testimony.” Second point: Because the action of the court, id.,. “ * * * injured .and prejudiced them before the . jury.” ’ Third' point:, id., “ * * * because the appellants were entitled to freely argue ,to -the jury -and draw such conclusions and •comment from the testimony as- they de■sired.” It will be thus seen from appellants’ brief that they make no assignment, or point of error, as to admission or rejection of evidence. In absence of such assignment of error, the Court is not authorized to reverse and remand-the cause on grounds dehors the record.
■ The action of the majority in reversing dnd remanding this cause, as reflected in their, opinion, .is of such fundamental error of law as to. warrant the Supreme Court to entertain, jurisdiction of the, cause, either •op application for writ or certificate by this Court, in the interest of orderly trial. I respectfully dissent from the majority.