Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1965 )

A
EXAS
Honorable Neal E. Birmingham Opinion No. C-419
Criminal District Attorney
Cass County, Texas Re: Whether the County Court
Lindenj Texas :' of Cass County has juris-
diction of eminent domain
Dea~rMr. Birmingham: matters.
You have'requested anopinion from this office concern-
ing eminent domain jurisdiction of the County Court of Cass
County, Texas. In your letter requesting an opinion you
state; "In Gammells Acts '1879~,
July 8, C.S., Ch. 26, ppT 21-
22, the jurisdiction of the County Court of Cass County was
diminished." It is our understanding that the District Court
of Cass County has hever exercised jurisdiction over eminent
domain matters; instead, eminent domain cases have always
been filed and disposed of in the County Court inaccordance
with Art. 3264, Vernon's Civil Statutes, et seq.
The above Acts of 1879 diminished the general civil and
criminal jurisdiction of the County Courts of twelve named
counties including Cass County and conformed,the jurisdiction
of the District Courts of the respective counties to such
change. This Act of 1879 did not specifically mention eminent
domain jurisdiction.
Texas Constitution, Article V3 Sec. 22, states:
"Sec. 22. The Legislature shall have power, by
local or general law, to increase, diminish or
change the civil and criminal jurisdiction of
County Courts; and in cases of any such change of
jurisdiction, the Legislature shall also conform
the jurisdiction of the other courts to such
change."
Article 1960, Vernon's Civil Statutes, states:
"Where the jurisdiction of a county court has
been taken away, alt'eredor changed by existing
laws, the same shall remain as established, until
otherwise provided by law. Jurisdiction shall
: '-1974-
Hon. Neal E. Birmingham, page 2 (C-419)
obtain in allmatters of eminent domain over which
the county courts have jurisdiction by the general
laws of this State." Acts 1885, p. 77; G.L. vol.
9, P. 697
In Southern Kansas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Vance, 104 Tex. 90,
133 S.W. 1043 (lgll), the Court construed the statutory antece-
dents of Art. 1960, and concluded that the evident purpose and
intention of the Legislature was to continue in the County
Courts all the power and jurisdiction as to eminent domain.
At page 1044 the Court stated:
"To this question we answer: The jurisdiction
of the county court of Ca~rsoncounty, in respect
to matters of eminent domain, was not affected
by the act of the Legislature diminishing its
general jurisdiction. By the terms of the act
of the Nineteenth Legislature, approved March 31,
1885, it was provided 'that all county courts
whose civil jurisdiction has been heretofore, or
may hereafter be diminished by law, to such extent
as to no longer be able to exercise jurisdiction
in matters of eminent domain shall, in addition
to the powers and jurisdiction now lawfully
exercised by them, be clothed with full jurisdic-
tion in and over all matters of eminent domain
over which the county courts have jurisdiction
by the general laws of this state.'" (Emphasis
added)
See also Vogel v. State, 50 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.Civ.App. 1932).
As recent as 1955, the Court in City of Bryan v. Moehlman, 155
Tex. 45, 282 S.W.2d 687 (1955), upheld the eminent domain
UTisdiCtiOn of a County Court in the face of Art.,199, Subd.
45, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which contained language diminish-
ing the general and ,criminaljurisdiction of that Court, prior
to its 1949 amendment. The Court quoted Art. 1960, and held
at page 691:
"We hold that this statute controls and that
jurisdiction lies in the county court of Brazos
County in matters of condemnation under the right
of eminent domain. . . .'
In Opinion No. o-6325, a copy of which is attached hereto,
this office concluded that the County Court of Bowie County
had jurisdiction of eminent domain matters in the face of Art.
1970-306, Vernon's Civil Statutes, a statute diminishing the
-1975-
Hon. Neal E. Birmingham, page 3 (C-419)
general jurisdiction of the County Court of Bowie County in
civil and criminal matters. Art. 1970-306 did not specifi-
cally mention eminent domain jurisdiction.
Based upon the above authorities, it appears that a
special or local law reducing the general jurisdiction of a
county court or courts, which does not specifically mention
eminent domain jurisdiction, is not to be construed as an
expression of Legislative intent to abolish or transfer the
special statutory jurisdiction of County Courts over eminent
domain matters conferred by the general statutes governing
eminent domain matters in Texas because Art. 1960, a general
law, manifests specific Legislative intent to retain juris-
diction of eminent domain matters in the County Courts of
Texas. It is, therefore, our opinion that the County Court
of Cass County has jurisdiction of eminent domain matters
since the Act of 1879 did not specifically transfer eminent
domain jurisdiction from the County Court of Cass County to
the District Court.
SUMMARY
The County Court of Cass County has jurisdiction
of eminent domain matters under existing statutes.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General of Texas
07L+cLA.A. d
RICHARD A. SHANNON
Assistant Attorney General
RAS:ca
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Bill Osborn
Fred Talkington
Arthur Sandlin
Ralph Rash
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Stanton Stone
-1976-