Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

Hon.~Sam Bdn
Countg'AtGrneg
LeOh County.
Centerville, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No‘. 0-1681
Re: Removal dP the cbUnty seat of
Leon County, Texas,‘frGm'Ced%C-
iiillb, the present county seat;
and related questions.
Youti letter of Fee&t aate~, Pequ&itI~~~the oplniijn of“
fXIs D.epartm@nt on the above matter and related questions, has
been received.
We quote, in part, from. your rwmnqication: ,.
"1.~ In base a municipalitj+ bear& the~e'xpdtibe'
af building a nsw tiourt house-did movXn&-~theddnty
site does the l&l still~re@iFe'~the msjoliXtg bf -.~~
residelit Wee-holders~to pet-itioir~~t~e'cour~~fijr an
&de&tion'&nd ~a0eslt ~still~require~a~2/3-~?or~ty
of~the voters PavorIng same to move the court
house.
"2 . Wbuld a-'city be permittd under the co -
&tIfution"and statutes of this state to Vote bo-t:da
creating is debt upon'~the city for the purpose df
building a court house for the county.
"3 . Exactly what is a free-holder?"
You flirther pbint out ,iii your~letter that CBntWvillle,
the piW&n%t cbuntg'seat, is~located‘%ithIii fFve niileKdP"thB~'*'~~
g&ogFaphiC&l center.of the-.doiuity, &&has been the county seat
of Leon County for more than forty ._ years.
ThG afisWi%rto y-titi rlrst qU&tKon i& feud in the prdvT='
siofik of ArticUd~I595 .atiKl596; RWlsd'Civil~Statutes of Texas.
Article 1596, supra,
. provides in part, as,follows:
'%fhki a bounty-'seat has been establGh&! fur
tiotie thkiii'~fortg yij.5~a, it shi%ll requires& m&JWXty
of the resident freeholders ad 'qualified voters.
Hon. Sam Bain, page 2 O-1681
of sala county to make the application, said majority
to’ be ascertalned by the county judge from the
assessment rolls thereof.”
The application referred to in this quotation Is that
ai+ected tij the countjr judge, elsewhere ~PoVided ‘for ~in”the ~.
sthtUte;‘tialllng for~afi~el&ctlon in the county on the issue of
the removal of the county seat.
Article 1595, supra, in part, reads as follows:
“No county se&t situated within five miles
of the geographlcal center of any county she11
be’‘removed except’.by ti vote Of two-thirds of all
the electors,,in said county voting on the subject;
.... ...... ..
The condition prefacing your first qutistion; %i ca&
is ‘Unicipality bears the expense‘of bI.illaing a iid MuFt~ h6tis6
kid hioving--the countg site;” of cijurse~.3 would h?ive nd ~eff&X 6ii
the eppllcatloii of Articles 1595 and 1596, suppa: ~The qu65tion
tif~‘the sninlcipality bearing .dch ‘ejrpense Is discussed in our
answer to your second question which follows.
~Th&re is no Inherent Pigtit, tinder the Coli8tFtritio.G ‘bf
Texiis, 0f.a tinicipality~ tb isZ3ujuB
Its b6nds, ‘Sutiti right-bidfits . _.‘.
IYaYall, titi&r the geni?Pal laws--of ‘the State, i%I the ‘@3poses
fi5ir’wh-ich bombs Mayobe isstied by a municipality are likewise con-
trolled by the general laws.
Section 2 of Article 11 of the Texas Constitution, pro-
vides :
“Thenconstructiijn of jails, cMrt-houses and
bdsIg6s -aha the establishmeiit of county’pbor
tioi~ses iina farms, and the laying”out, coristructlon
afia repairing of-~county roads shall be provided
for by general laws.”
Article 718, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, provides
in part:
“Crjuntg issub& authorized. - After haeing~ ~’
been~ authorlzed as pPovlded in Chapter? ‘1 ‘of this
tTtl6, then tiommistiioiMr8 1 coWt of ‘a ‘cduntg tig
ltiwfilly is&&the bonds of said county for the
following purposes:
“1; To ez%dt the county court house and
jail, or either; O~O.OO..~.’
Hon. Sam Baln, page 3 O-1681
By general laws,/therefore, it Is specifically provided
that-county courthouses are to be'construEted by~the county'it-
self, for which the bonds of.the caurity may be-lawfullg"iti&iied.
There'is no authorization of, or'ptiovislon for, the construc-
tion of county courthouses by municipalities.
We think it' obvltiti ~that.the cbn'stivctldli Ma.county
Murthtise is'pPlinarily dtinty business-and, conversely,
could not be classified as municipal business.
As correctly statlng~ the ~rule~'with~refer&nce tb'the'.'ex-
pr&sti and Implied powers bYa nslnlcIpalit we quote from Texas
Jurisprudence, Vol. 30, para. 50, page 10 i5r
"The pbv&i?s'bf a muKicipal'corpor&itTon are"
d.ther~express oii implId. 'The fotier are thobe
vhich~ the legisl&tive act under~~whlc~~they~(txi~t
donfers In-.express terms; the'latter are such ati
are-necessary in oiler to tiarry~ into eff&Ct~ those
exptiessly graiited, and which must, thdrefdre, be
presiim&d to hale been Hthifi the IntCtntiM of the
legislatiire grant:. SuCh a cotiporatioii c&n exeF
cG&those powers and dnlJi~t:hbse powiitis which~.&ire
gFantd to IIt in express wOrds; or; @are n&eS&arily
br f&'e;itily imijlie&in oF'inciderit to the'ptiwijtiti
expr.e%sly granted, 6re'.9Fe esstidtdaf 'to the.bccom-
jz2Istidient tiof the declared obj&ts'~an&puFpdsM of
%he'tiorporatibn.....' But afi Zmpliea power lrmst'
cltii%e outs of~and be appropriate~to the execution
0f.M e%pPesti p'bwer. ma, to infer or iitiplg-
power to do a particular thing., IY'nnrst appear-.
not only to be‘convenient', useful and biineficial
tomthe aariiicipality', but also indIspensable for
the dischaFge of the obligations arid purposes oft
itti tiorijdrate existence - so-~that without its ex-
Stibise an expressed duty of authority would be
rendered nugatory......." ,.
The authority of a municipalFtg to issue XtS borias~is
f%iiid in Article 823, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which
reads:
"Atiy city or towii may issue its coupdn bonds
fbF$tich-sum as'itm&y~&e~m expedi&t' for the
plirpbse.6f tti&'Eontiti+ucti&'~of ijurctia~~~~of public
bii'lldings;~wate~opks;'-.sCtwers, and otti& permanent
itipPoii&i%%ts Within the~c~fty limits, Etiid~foe the
tioGti%ictibn~&ti imptiovement 'of the'r‘dads; and
.StPetits oft sUtih-'citjr br- toen. This'aSLcle in- "
eludes building sites-and buildings for the public
Hon. Sam Bsin, page 4 O-1681
free schools and Institution& of learning within
tiuch~cities and towns which assume th8 exclusive
control of their public free scho'dls anii institu-
tions of learning. Such bonds shall bear"'intBr'
eat not'to exceed Six per cijnt per annum'and shall
become due and payable serially~ or‘~othWwis‘E not
t6 8xceea forty years from-.their date and'~may b6‘
payable at such place as may be fixed by ordinance..~ .
11
The phrase "for the ptirpoge of'the construction~'or pur-
chase of public buildings," dan have~'but'-'one meaning; timely,
thdse_. buildings coining.within the corpoi%t@ f'unctioiis cii'the-"
munlclpallty.~~ Clearly, this statute does not &xpfie&slg &tithbrz
itie'.& tinFCipality to issue~Ilts b6nas'for'.the tionbttititioti 6f.e
Runty ctirth-ousti; .it- is eqilallg clear 'that'Suc~~authdri~~-c~n-
tio't; b6~~iinplied~~from the ejipres'sed'~p6wers given &Yb&i?& etitien--
tI&l di? necessary to the acc'omplishment of the objects, obli-
gations or purposes of the municipality.
.
In an analagous sitiiation, we‘.quote froth thB opinioll of
the-supreme Court of Indiana in the case 'df Myers Vs. City of
Seffersonville, 145 1x113.
431, as follows:
_ 44 N.E. 452, ~_.
-"Money borpowed by'& City to abfraythe eji-
peMe of litigation itivolving'the rijnioval of a
Uitits se&t; 'and the-'&s% of a lbt iind the build-
ping of-a~courthouse ana.aF‘jall for a'66izhty; tie
hbld to beg unauthorized; an&bonds issuea'to se-
cure the-'money a6 borrowed hiriVenot'such validity
in'the haiids~of any holder, as to preclude a citi-
zenand taxpayer ~from the'right Of iyjunction to
prevent the refunding of such bonds.
Again we quote from the Supreme Court of India?; iti the
case bf Schneck VS. City of Jeffersonville, 152 Ind. 212, 52 N.E.
212, as follows:
"Then clause 'public improvements or public
ilorks' cannot be so extended 6r construea as to
atithorize the city to reder aid, by donation -.
lh money or'bonds, ih locating therein; the seat
of jtistiM end constructing the nec&ssaPg county
buildings; and we,atie compelled tomadher to the
exposrtidn oft the lail-giv&n in Mjrers vb. City bf
Seffersbnville, supPa; that thii clty“was not ifi-
v&t&'at~ the time 'withX&gitiltititie authority to
ixitiur the indebtedness and issue the bonds in
question." .
See also the case of Callam vs. City of Saginaw, 50 Mich.
Hon. Sam Baln, page 5 O-1681
7; 14 NW677, wherein it was held that a cltjr is unauthorized
td borrow money for the purpose of erectia a county court-
htiu;le, in the &ib&ence~of'~'&pecific authorization thetiefor oy
statute.~ .See also the case of Russell, et al vs. Tate, et al,
13 S.W. 130, by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Ati we hav& heretofdtie'pointed out;'the Constltiitioti of
T&x&s'provides that the cotistruction of courthouse* shall be
proviaed for by general laws. Such~proviiion IS made by Article
718;supra, whereby county ccurthijus& may be constnietea ~by
the county. There'13 no general law authorizing the constriic-~
tltin of a County c'durthouse by a municipality. You are there-
fore respetitfully aavlsea that it Is the'opinion of this depart;
iseM that a municipality ih Texas'would not.be authorized, under
the' Cohstitutiofi'of'the statutes-of thTs Sttiite, to l~%&i~ile Its
bonds for the purpose of constructing a courthouse for the county.
In your thIra qvestion you ask what 1s a free-hold&;
This t:erm.is adequately defined in the case of Atkins, et ux,
vs. Davis, et al, 291 S.W. 968, 970, as follows:
"A freeholder Is one who holds Iand in fee
or for life, or for some~indeterminate period.
14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p0 530. A freehoMer
is elsewhere defined as a term usea to desIgnate
the owneti of an estate'in f&e in'lana as'meaning
6ne~whb holds freely; a person actually tielzed
bT.an~estafe or freehold; legal or equittible; bne
who holas an e&&M iti. fee simple, fee'tal?., or
fbbr a term of life; one having title to real es-
FtJe which may be inherited &J‘real property. 27
p. 896. 'One who has an immediate bene-
f&iii ownershlp (or) interest, legal or equitable,
in the title-to a fee-simple estate in 1aiid;ma
be regarded as a freeholder.' Dean v. State, 7t
Fla. 277, 77 So. 107."
Trusting that this answers your inquiry satisfactor$ly,
we remain
Hon. Sam Bain, page 6 O-1681
Very truly yours,
ATTORNBYGENERALOF
TEXAS
By s/Wm. J. Fiilnnirig
Wm. J.-.Fanning
Assistant _.
By s/Zollle~'Steiikley
Zollie Steakley
ZCS:AW:wc
APPROVEINOV29, 1939
s/Gerald C. Nann
ATTOmEYGENERALOFTEXAS _ ,,.
Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman