Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1960 )


Menu:
  •               THEATTORNEYGENERAI.
    OFTEXAS
    November   18, 1960
    Mr. Ed H. McLaran            Opinion No.    w-962
    County Attorney
    Madison County               Re:   Whether the Commissioners'
    Madisonville, Texas                Court has the authority un-
    der Article 6711,Vernon's
    Civil Statutes, to entertain
    jurisdiction on the appli-
    cation of two taxpaying citi-
    zens for the establishment of
    a road over the land of an-
    other to the county road sys-
    Dear Mr. McLaran:                  tem.
    We are in receipt of your request for an opinion from
    this office concerning the following question:
    "Would the commissioners' court of said
    county have authority under Art. 6711,V.C.S.
    of Texas, to entertain jurisdiction on the
    application of two of its taxpaying citizens
    for the establishment of a road or passageway
    over the land of another to the county road
    system?"
    In your letter, you provided us with these additional
    facts. The property In question is two lots located within
    the incorporated limits of the City of Madisonville. Two
    fences were built by an adjoining land owner which complete-
    ly blocked the passageway to their properties and they filed
    a petition with the Commissioners1 Court demanding a passage-
    way over the land of the person who built the fences. The
    city acquiesced to the county any authority it had In the sub-
    ject matter.
    Article   6711of Vernon's Civil Statutes states in part
    as follows:
    "Any lines between different persons or
    owners of lands, any section line, or any
    practicable route, practicable route as used
    herein, shall mean a route which will not un-
    duly inconvenience the owners or persons
    Mr. Ed H. McLaran, Page 2 (w-962)
    occupying the land through which such route
    shall be declared, that the Commissioners
    Court may agree on in order to avoid hills,
    mountains or streams through any and all en-
    closures, shall be declared a public highway
    on the following conditions:
    "1. One or more freeholders, or owners
    of lands, persons, firms or corporations, intO
    whose lands there Is now no public road or
    public means of access, who desires an access
    road connecting his said land with the county
    public road system, may make a sworn applica-
    tion to the Commissioners Court for an order
    establishing such road, designating the lines
    sought to be opened, and the names and resi-
    dences of the person or persons affected by
    such proposed access road, and stating the
    facts which show a necessity therefor. (Em-
    phasis added)
    ". e s
    "4. The damages to such landowners shall
    be assessed by a jury of
    _ freeholders,
    __           as_.for .
    other public roads, and ail costs attenaing tne
    proceedings In opening said road shall be paid
    by the County, and the Commissioners Court shall
    not be required to keep such road worked by the
    road hands as in the case of other public roads,
    but shall place said roads in the first instance
    in condition for use as access public roads. Acts
    1884,ist C.S., pe 20; G.L. vol. 9, p. 553;Acts
    1930, 4LstLeg., 5th C.S., p. 207,ch. 62, [31;
    Acts 1953, 53rd Leg., p. 1054, ch. 438, B 1."
    The Texas courts have repeatedly held that the Commis-
    sioners' Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and has
    only such powers as are conferred upon it by statutes and
    Constitution of this State, either b expressed terms or
    by necessary implication. Section 15 of Article V of the
    Texas Constitution, Von Rosenberg v, Lovett, 
    173 S.W. 508
    ;
    Galveston H.'& S.A. Ry. Co. v. Uvalde County, 167 S.W. 2d
    084;11 Tex. Jur. 564.
    As a general proposition of law, It is settled that
    the control and jurisdiction over streets of a munlcipalltv
    are exclusive in that city or town. However, the courts
    Mr. Ed H. McLaran, page   3 (W-962)
    have held that the county has the right to expend funds
    in the improvement of streets within the corporate limits
    of a city when such streets form a part of the county road
    system, or a connecting ltnk in State highways, when done
    with the consent of the city. City of Breckenridge v.
    Stephens County, 120 Tex, 318,40 S W 2d 43 (1931).
    v. County Commissioners~ Court of H&&s   Count
    2d 818 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931); Attorney GeneralTs Opinion
    v-261,dated June 23, 1947; Attorney General's OpinionO-4256,
    dated December 12, 1941; Attorney General's Opinion V-971,
    dated December 16, 1949.
    The question now is whether the Legislature has confer-
    red upon the Commissioners I Court the authority to estab-
    lish a county road within a municipality so as to provide
    a road for property owners who have been cut off access to a
    street within that municipality and to expend county money
    for the building of such a road and fnr its maintenance.
    Paragraph 1 of Article   6711of Vernon's Civil Statutes
    provides in part that:
    "One or more freeholders, or owners of lands,
    . . e into whose lands there is now no public road
    or public means or access, who desires an access
    road connecting his said land with the county pub-
    lic road system,. . ." (Emphasis added).
    It   is our opinion that persons who do not have an ac-
    cess to   their property and seek to come within the provis-
    ions of   Article 6711,must be in a position_to Establish
    clearly   that such road will connect to the "county public
    system"   and form a part of the county road system or a con-
    necting   link in State highways.
    House Bill 77 of the 54th Legislature; which wascodi-
    fied by Vernon's Cl.vi!.
    Stati>.ces
    as Article >6674n, provides
    that the State Highway Commission as well asthe Coun$'
    Comqissionersl Court have tineauthority and,the power to
    exercise the right of eminent domain within the boundaries
    of a~municipality with the prior consent of the governing.
    body of such municipality and provides that the county in
    which the State highway is to be located may pay for same
    out of the County Road and Bridge Fund, or any available
    county fund.
    House Bill 670 of the 56th Legislature, which was codi-
    fied by Vernon's Civil Statutes as Article 6674n-2, provides
    in part as follows:
    Mr. Ed H. McLaran, page 4   (w-962)
    'Section 1. The right of eminent domain
    within the boundaries of a municipality with
    prior consent of the governing body of such
    municipality is hereby conferred upon counties
    of the State of Texas for the purpose of con-
    demning and acquiring land, right of way or
    easement in land, private or public, except
    property used for cemetery purposes, where said
    land, right of way or easement is, in the judg-
    ment of the Commissioners Court of such county,
    necessary or convenient to any road which forms
    or will form a connecting link in the county
    road system or a.connecting link ,In a State High-
    way. . ..'I
    It is assumed from your letter that the City of Madison-
    ville would give its consent to the Commissioners' Court
    should they seek it.
    This office held in Attorney General's Opinion   ``-872,
    dated June 29th, 1960,in part as follows:
    "The quoted sections of Article 6711 clear-
    ly indicate the intent of,the Legislature in
    adopting amendments to the statute. The statute
    as amended is to remedy the situation existing
    when land owned by a person or corporation is so
    surrounded by other land owned by other persons or
    corporations that it may not ,be reached without
    crossing private property. This statute author-
    izes the connection of such isolated land with
    the county road system." (Emphasis added).
    In answering the auestion as to whether Article 6711is
    mandatory or directory, we held in this same opinion that:
    "It would be inaccurate to describe the
    statute, in its entirety, as being either 'man-
    datory' or 'directory.' The statute lists cer-
    tain procedures which must be followed, and
    directs some actions of the county commissioners.
    However, the order which may be issued by the Com-
    missioners' Court after hearing the evidence is
    subject to the discretion of the court."
    It Is our opinion that your Commissioners' Court has
    been given the authority to entertain jurisdiction of this
    application, if the provisions of the statute have been
    complied with and if such road will connect with the county
    Mr. Ed.H. McLaran, page 5 (W-962)
    public road system. Further, it is our opinion that the
    Commlssloners~ Court has the right of eminent domain to
    acquire this property within the boundaries of this munici-
    pality where prior consent of the governing body of such
    municipality Is so conferred on the county.
    SUMMARY
    The Commissioners'.Court has the
    authority under.Article 6711 and Artl-
    cle 6674n-2, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
    to entertain jurisdiction of an appll-
    cation of two landowners for the estab-
    lishment of a public road over the land
    of another to the county public road
    system.
    Yours’ very truly,
    WILL WILSON
    on F. Pesek
    LFP:mm:ms
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    W. Ray Scruggs
    Llnward 'Shivers
    ,Martha Joe Stroud
    Joe B. M&laster
    REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    BY: Leonard Passmore
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-962

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1960

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017