Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1952 )

Hon. Sam W. Davis Opinion NO. v-1480
District Attorney
Harrle County Re: Authority of the commls-
Houston, Texas aloners a court to prevent
the sale of lots fronting
on a street leea than
sixty feet wide in a sub-
division which has not
Dear. Sir: been pl,atted Andyrecorded.
You have requested an opinion on the follow;
lng qu&tlon.
“The Harris County Commlealoners I, Court
hae requested this office to obtain your
oplnlon’on the following problem:
“A .land developer 18 selling lots fiut-
e’id,d of the corporate limits of cities or
towne7,by metes and bounds deacrlptions in a
geneii;al scheme or subdivision which has not
been platted and recorded as preecrlbed by
law; the roada or &r&eta on which the lots
front are leas. than 60 feet In width.
“Does the county commlasloner8” court
have authority to prevent the. eale of lots
by metes and bounds deacrlpt~ioti, fronting
on a street least than 60 feet wide, zon-
trary to S.B..321, 52nd Legislature? If’
8o;what procedure Is available to the Corn-
missioner8 ~court to prevent such sales,
If any? II
Senate Bill 321, A&e 52nd Leg., R. S., 1951,
ch. 151~: p. 256 (Art. ~2372k, v;c.s.) provides:
“Section, 1. (a) In all counties having
a population of not lees than one hun&.ed
ninety thoueand (190,000) acdordlng to the
last preceding or any future FederalCensus,
the.X!ommlsai’oners Court8 of such counties
shall~ have the authority to require the
_- -
Hon. gam W. Davie, page i (v-1480)
.
“(b) The Coinmisaioners Courts of,any
such counties shall have the authority to
tpromulgate reasonable speclflcatlons~to be
fOliOWed in the c’onatruction.of any such
road8 or streets. within such aubdivlalons,
whlah epeolfl.oatlons-may include provieions
for the oonatruotion of adequakdrainage
for suoh roads or atmeets.
“Sei . :2. ‘The Comnilakoner~ Colirte oi
any euoh oountlee~‘.ahall .have the authority
m-u te l Suoh bOntj shall be made payable to,
the %olxnty JUdge, or-his mccemors. In of-
. floe, of the oountg uhereinsuch mabdivirrlon
llefi, at&oond%tloaied that the owner or
T,,Orman of’ uny rueh traot of land to be sub-.
d1Oid.d will oon&mot w rohde. or streete.
~%thln euoh eubdlvislon in ao.ooMance wlth
,thr rpeolfloutloh# pFomulgeted br the Corn-
~mirsionera 00&t of any map or plat of. any c *,.
auoh rubdiplsion. TMi’bond shall be in euoh
amoimt a6 may be. detsmnlned by the aomia-
aionem Court .but,ehall not exoesd a mm
.equal to Thred (43.00)~ Dol&& for eaoh
lineal foot oi road or etreet witI$n suoh
eubdlvlblon. ~.
.
Hon. Sam W. Davis, page 3 (v-1480)
“Sec. 3. The Commissioners Courts of
any such counties shall have the authority
to’refuae to approve and authorize any map
or plat of any-&h subdivision unlesi such
map or plat provides for AoC~.~l&ta&.lrllllthe _
minimum right-of-way for roads or streets
as reaulred In Section l(a) hkreof; and
there is Bubmltted with such map or Nat a
bond as required by Section 2 hkeof;”
In Gulf View Courts v. Galveston County 150
S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Clv. App. 1941, error ref.), the’court
granted @lveston County a mandatory InjunctIon requir-
ing the Gulf View Courts to remove certain buildings
from an easement for aea-wall purposes whioh the county
had, PreVipualy,. .obtalned.
It, ls ‘well settled tha.t a county will be en-
titled to in.lunctive ~relief for the nurDoae of lceeDlnn
eaaements for road purposea unobstrudteh
215 s w 26 387 (Tex’ CiYiF -
&‘241 S.W.2d $44 (iexr)Pdiv.
Senate Bill 321 grants to the County an
easement. of sixty feet for roads or.etreets Intended
for public use. It speclflcally provides .that the corn-
mlssion$rs.t courts ye authoplzed to require the owner
‘of a subdlvlsion to Rrovide fbr ,a right-of-way of not
less than’ sixty feet. Further,,the commissioners8
court may ‘promulgate reasonable specifications for the
construction. of euoh .roads. The emergency clause
stat&)a :? . I’.” Ik’.<.
. . ::
.
11
‘. that ~maintalnlng tihoody roada ind
‘streets In n&w rubdi.vlslons’has become a heavy
Wain on county Road and Bridge Funds,,and .the
fact that at present. .the County. Commlss$onere,
Courts have no’ legal authority to ‘require real
estate developers to oanstruot~substantlal roads
and. atreete in auoh new rubdlvialon, creates an
emergeno,+. . . ”
Thus It is. proper ,for the Oommilasloners’ scout to protect
this property interest by resort to the courts ~for any
~’lnjunotlon agaln8t.interfe;renoe.wlth its use.
The grant of an express power bg the.ieglsla-
ture gives. with It .b;Y neoeasary impllcatlon every other
~power necessary and,proper to the execution. of.the power
Hon. Sam.W. Davis, page 4 (v-1480)
expreeely anted. Terre11 v. Sparks, 104 Tex. 191, 135.
S. W. 519, r 1911); Moon v. Allred, m S.W. 787 (Tex. Civ.
APP. 1925, error &am.). Therefore, it is our opinion
t,hat the oommlsaloners~ oourt may.bring an Injunction
prooeedlng to enforce the provisions of’Senate Bill 321.
.
The oom@ssioners~ courts ~of oountles
having a population of 190,000 or more in-
habitants may bring an Injunction proceed-
ing ,to~ enforoe the provlalons of Senate. Bill
321;~ Acts g2nd Leg., R.S. 1951, oh.,l51, p*
256 (Art. 2372k. V.C.S.,), .pr vldlng that the
oomm.tseionerel courts are aut horlsed to re-
quire that owners of aubdlvlslona situated
outeide the.bounds of any Incorporated town
or olty provide for rights-of-way of not
less than sixty feet for any roads or streets
within their subdivision. I
Yours very truly,
APPROVED: PRICE ,IuLNm
Attorney tinbra
J. C. Davis, Jr. .’
County Affairs ~Divislon
E. Jaoobson. .‘l
RevlowIng Aaslatant-' John Reeves
Charles D. M&hewn
.First Assistant
JR:am
. ,.’
. . ‘~
.,
:
.