Opinion · Texas Supreme Court

United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Carter

15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 11

Type
Opinion
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Texas
Date
1971-10-06
Topic
general

holding court of appeals was authorized to remand in the interest of justice and refusing writ of error | holding court of appeals was authorized to remand in the interest of justice and refusing writ of error | holding remand is appropriate when a case, for any reason, has not been fully developed | holding court of appeals was authorized to remand in the interest of justice and refusing writ of error | explaining that, where a case has not been fully developed or “in the interest of justice[,]” an appellate court may remand for a new trial rather than render judgment | noting appellate court may remand when case has not been fully developed

Citator

Cited by
30 opinions
PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the court of civil appeals in this case contains the following language: “Since appellee obviously proceeded on the theory that the stipulation of total value of the loss was effective, we think that in the interest of justice the entire judgment should be reversed and remanded for another trial.” United States Fire Insurance Company v. Carter, 468 S.W.2d 151, at 155 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1971).

An appellate court may only reverse for error committed on trial. It may not reverse “in the interest of justice.” Having reversed because of error committed on trial, a court of civil appeals or the Supreme Court may, because the case has not been fully developed, or in the interest of justice, or for like reason, remand for a new trial rather than render the judgment which should have been rendered by the court below. See Rules 434 and 505, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules do not authorize an appellate court to reverse “in the interest of justice.”

In this case the record reflects that error was committed on trial which requires a reversal of the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court of civil appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court was proper. Under Rule 434, its judgment remanding the cause rather than rendering judgment for the appellant was authorized. Accordingly, both applications for writ of error are refused, no reversible error.