Lester & Co. v. Whittle, 114 Tex. 548, 273 S.W. 808, 812 (1925). This rule applies even though the alleged unconstitutionality of a statute is not pled. But we do not rely upon the above authority, for to characterize this issue as a point of error not raised on appeal or presented at trial misconstrues the nature of what this Court is called upon to do. Lisa does not ask this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional, a matter not raised by point of error on appeal, but rather to interpret a statute, i.e., section 13.42(a) of the Texas Family Code. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 13.42(a) (Vernon Supp. 1990). In such a situation, we must not place an interpretation upon a statute that creates an unconstitutional application. See State v. Shoppers World, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex.1964) (<HOLDING>). Also, we are not without guidance in this
holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity holding replevin statute unconstitutional although it merely authorized the seizure of property which occurred only after the order was given to the sheriff holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional holding that apprendi did not render  841 unconstitutional