Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

,_ .
467
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
IIonorehleCharlsgLvokhWt, Pegs 2
lmtrumentshellbe flleao~ reoor&4by
any County C&31-kin this Stnte until thee
ha8 been efflxed to such lnstrtnnentstsrgs
f;n,gzaNlce titk the r017bit0~!3 of tt38
, . ..!nlll aeceIonsbrrllh~t hp*
ply toinstrumenta,notacr~or other &Ii:
gationa taken by or on behalf of the
United Statea or of the St&e of Texas, or
wr oorporate agency or instrumentalltp
of the UnlttxlStates Or of the State of
Toxus Ln 0arryi.w out 8 governmentalpur-
pose (LBexpresse6 ln any Aot of t&O con-.
gresrrof the Tilted States or of the
Le,-lslatureof the State of Texas, . . .
"(b) Pugnsnt of the tax a8 hereby
lev:ed ahall be evldenoebby aillslas,the
stampa hereIn provided for, to ml.1katru-
?CW.ltS
bChd~ WithhI the 3l'OVi6~O~f tb.6
hot, . . ."
The h&f6 own worda say that it "&ml1 not apply
to inetruments, notoe or other obllgntlomattken by or on
4 ate of Toxra . . . or any oorporate
behalf of . '.. the L)
egency or lnstrumentmllty. . . of the State of Tom In uar-
rylng out a governmentalput-gone taperpresse4 in my Aat
US . . OS the Stnte.of Temee
A aounty come8 oleuly rlth%n the phrrei %orporate
eganoy or instrumentality. . . of the State of TOM." In
11 Tex. Jur. 524, It is rnldt
"Counties are Lnstmnrrsntelltlas of tbQ
stats* They are polft1oa.leubalvlsionswhloh
ora oroated by tha 8overelgnwill for the
``~080 OS awhprgi~ the 8t8ws autm
towarclita Inhabiter&a. They are agonoies
for the fA&i.l.strmtion of msttsra whloh em
of t3tat.e - as dlstlnguishedfron IEuulcipal-
conoern such QS theaJlleatlon'oftaxes,
the 4lShuion of education, the constrtaation
ariba&tsr;ctn.ce of public hletrmgs, the'eb
mfnistration of justice and the care of t&9
poor.”
Emorablc Chw-ley Jkakhart, P8ge 3
see also ‘thecrisesOS city.OS Galvsston VW PosaaWq 62
='a. ll3, so Art.rtop.517 end Wldraas Couufq V. &s&e,
127 Tex. 543, 92 SI Z. c2f 1011.
iholts &so comes r1th.l.n
tb.ephrase "aorpomte
agency or instrumentality. w w of ths Stats OS Texas.'
Inl~h;Qoaseof CZty of Goose Creek VI Evmlcutt, 120 Tex.
I S. Z..(2) 611, It was saldr
“The mare aat of Inoorporatinga
munlclpullty,whether such incorpor&lon
to efieotedunder the harrerule nmen4-
xmlt (cbnmt.,urt.11, par. 3) or not
ambraaes nchhlng more than the creetion
of P -overmental agency, which beoomes
lnve&d nlth tawh powers ea the lrr
aonfer~. It is Mae tha~leglslatl*h
power to lnoarpOrat8e hem% rule Oity
1s by oonstitutlonalprovlslon,dele-
g&d to the lnhabitmtr of the terrl-
tokl affected neverthe a olt ao
incorporatedfa a polltlaal auk&v f sfon
of thewatcts far governmentelpurposu8
*w.
Seenlao thA cobes of Son Fellpo da &dAn Corporationv.
State Ill.Tex, 100, 229 SW W. 845 Yatt PI Cook, ll3 TM.
eo&6; S+a3f;'w
0371 pnd 's"rentVW RMGolph, (Civ. App.1
. ** .
This bringa ua to the OOXIO1?lSioIi
that the wt doe8
n$aapf;r to Instrumantst&en by or on behalf of a oounty
*in carryins,out a lcovemurrsntlil
purRone 0 0%
prczlae4iInsny act . .. * of the Strte of T8xa1~"
A couuty asn do only t?nosothings Efr& are protide
for by the constltut1oncc statutes, 'Countiesbea oom-
ponent parts of t&e State, have no powars or CutZea exoapt
those nhloh are clearly set forth snd'deflned3.nthe eon-
st1tut1on trndstatutes. The 8tbtutedl
have clorrly deSlned
the powera, prescribe4 the duties1 aa?,131posedthe Ueblll-
ties of the oox63.t8319~6tcourts, the tih3awUlrouGhtbich
the dirferent countlea act en4 Srom tlm9e stotutsgfgt
COT38all the authorl.ty wscao in the C0mt1iHi."
363. see also m.lla county vo Laqpassa Comtq, QO'Tex.
Jl.lr*~
EmoraMo c%:rlep Lookhart, Pw4 4
c‘os;, 40 s. ... 4053 azd Landman v. Xato, 97 Se V. (2) 2%
LlkCWkk2 R city can cc:or.17t?losotki.n~sthat are provId44
l.orky tlL-3 constltuticnor statutes. Vt Is a ~4n4ral and
uncilsputed ~roposttlo``i 0 f law that a xunIolpal corporation
po5sc,oscs an< can exercise the following powers, and no
othero: firat tkoao rrantod in express words SaCOnd,
tf~osenecessarilyor Glrly ImplI4d in or lnolLn t to the
powers 4x~ressly granted; turd those ese4ntl.d to'the
accorqAla&ent of L34 declared o6 and gurpo8ss of the
corporation,- not sl.q~lyconven but Indispensables
. . . Of every mnlolpnl corporation 4 uherter or stat-
ute by which It is orented Is Its or.gmla aat. lieltherthe
corporationnor its offlcsrs can do sny atit,or make any
contract,or incur any llsbillty,not authorIted,th4r4by,
or by sme 14~lslatIveact y?pliaableth4nto. Ali acts
beyond the scope of the powers gmntod are void." Poster
v. Cltg of ?~oco,113 Tex. SQ, 67 S. F. (2) lO$& See else
xantel v* state 55 Tax. Cr. Rep. 456, 117 53.I% 855, X51
Ari.St+*Rep, O& ..Dsvls.v~ City of Tsylor, 125.Teak.SQ,
67 3. h'.(2) 10%~ and 30 '&ix*Jur! 27,
*4 t&n& Wet the doing of sn ict authorbed by
the conatltut.ut!on
or stwtutes would oonstitut8aarryIng out
a go+amsentaiLpurposa~ Therefore, m@iaIngthatacomty
or:.acity #i-Ad do, If It uss don4 Lu-ly, mkld b4 i&-
cludedulthInth6phrasb "inoarqIq out 8``ovllmrsrsntti
purpose as expressed ln any act . t . ol the State of Taxad'
88 xust prosu3ae that the rots Of a mty Or s oi or tha9
offloera themoS, are lawful* "There Is a pretnnsp 7 km In
favor of the regularityof ol?fI~Ialtits, andrfien 4 pub110
offia~al dlechargeeor undertakea to dlsehW@ a d+ with
wh,ich.hela char@ by law, It wIl1 be pr4sumsd~ In the sb-
sonce of evidence ta the uontrnry, tit
&a~I.ly
end ln a lawful xmmer, an&that he sated r2t
not in exceaa of, his power and cruttmrl
278. See also Rooters Q. Rail, 61 Tex,
v. Fareley,37 s.'g, (2) 559.
Our answ4r to yo*urquestlon ia that the z-wording
stem:,tax provided for ln Ax%lole 70470 (VernonCs Annotated
Clvll .Statutesof Texas) is not due on lnstrtnaentsand
0
CCT\:FL
APPROVED
OPINION
COMMITTEE
EIVBQAIu*Y
APPROVETAUG
7, 1939
'U.U
Ai!TOFiNEY
GEXSRAL Or'TEXAS