Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1958 )


Menu:
  • -   -
    Hon. Andrew P. Johnson    Opinion NO, ``387
    County Attorney
    Dimmit County            Re:   Authority of Commissioners1 Court
    Carrizo Springs, Texas         to order or refuse to order a
    local option election,
    Dear Mr. Johnson:
    Receipt is acknowledged of your request for our opinion
    upon the two matters hereinafter set out, Your opinion request
    has been supplemented with some additional facts which we thought
    it necessary for us to have in order to answer your questions,
    We wish to thank you for your able brief which accom-
    panied your opinion request.
    You state that Dimmit County, by a local option election
    held in 1935, voted to prohibit the sale of all intoxicating al-
    coholic beverages in said county. You further inform us that no
    county-wide election has since been held which authorizes the sale
    of intoxicating alcoholic liquors in Dimmit County, You state
    that the City of Asherton is incorporated and lies wholly within
    the boundaries of Dimmit County; that the requisite number of qual-
    ified voters residing in said City of Asherton have presented to
    the Commissioners' Court of Dimmit County a petition asking that
    a local option election be held in said City of Asherton to deter-
    mine whether the sale of alcoholic liquors will be authorized in
    the corporate limits of said city,
    You desire the answer to two questions, and for the sake
    of brevity we shall condense each question, and transpose the or-
    der in which they are set out in your opinion request,
    Question No, 2: In substance, your first inquiry is
    whether the election mentioned, if held, would be a
    legal election,
    Our answer to the question is that such election would
    not be a legal election if held, Such election, if held and if
    the majority of votes cast should be in favor of making w sherton
    "wetn, would, in law have no effect on the present "dry" status
    of the City of Asherion. In our opinion Dimmit County, having
    become "dry" by reason of a county-wide focal option election in
    1935, Dimmit County and the whole of it will remain "dry" until it
    Han, Andrew P, Johnson, page 2   (WW-387)
    is otherwise determined by a county-wide election in which the
    majority of the votes cast and counted are for a change in the
    'ldryrt
    status of the county.
    In the case of Jackson vQ State, 118 S,W,2d 313, OUT
    Court of Criminal Appeals, speaking through Judge Graves, in
    part said:
    N 0 0 0 intoxicating liquors, once having
    been voted out, can only be voted back by a
    majority vote of the identical territorv that
    had voted such liquors out, To this effect is
    our holding in Aaron v0 State, 34 Tex.Cr. R,
    103, 29 SOW, 267." (The added emphasis is ours.)
    This decision was handed down in the year 1938 and has never
    been overruled,
    The Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, in the case of
    Goodie Goodie Sandwich, Inc.. vs State 138 S,W,2d 906, speak-
    ing through Chief Justice Bond, in pare said:
    "It has long been recognized by the courts
    of this State that, when the voters of a county
    justice precinct, town or city have, by means oh
    an election properly held, prohibited the sale of
    intoxicating liquors in such precinct or other
    political subdivision, it shall thus be unlawful,
    until the c+o'cers
    of such area shall determine
    otherwise by an election for that purpose. In-
    toxicating liquor, once voted out, can only be
    legalized by a majority vote of the territory
    that had voted it out, A change or abolition of
    the precinct or subdivision boundaries would not
    alter the status of the territory in relation to
    the sale of liauors, Houchins v0 Plainos. 110
    Tex. b-13,110 S,W,2d 549; Hill 'vOHowth, 101-Tex.
    620 111 S,W, 649; Jackson v, State, 135'Tex.Cr.
    R, 140, 1-18S,W,2d 3130ts"
    This decision was handed down in the year 1940. The writ of
    error tables show that error was dismissed by our Supreme Court
    with the notation that the decision was correct, and prior to
    the decision in the last mentioned case9 the Supreme Court of
    Texas, in the case of Houchins v0 Plainos. et al,, 110 S,W.2d
    5%9, speaking through Mr, Justice Critz, said in part:
    '*Ofcourse9 any such area has the right to
    become wet by so voting at an election legally
    -   1
    Hon. Andrew P, Johnson, page 3   (WW-387)
    ordered and held for that purpose under present
    local option statutes, In this connection how-
    ever, we again note THAT SUCH ELECTION MUS!CBE
    HELD IN THE SAME AREA THAT ORIGINALLY VOTED DRY."
    It is therefore our opinion that insomuch as Dimmit
    County became '*dry"by reason of a county-wide local option
    election, such county can only become "wet? by a county-wide
    election. No incorporated city of or in said Dimmit County can
    become '*wetrl
    by virtue of any local option election in such in-
    corporated city,
    Subsequent to the first decision of the appellate
    courts holding as above stated the Legislature has on more than
    one occasion amended the statuee, using in the amendment sub-
    stantially the same language as was in the statute when it was
    so interpreted by the appellate court, The Legisla,tureis pre-
    sumed to have known the construction placed upon this statute
    by the appellate courts, and that the same language will be
    given the same construction by the appellate courts as was given
    the lan uage previous to the amendments, (Lewis v. State, 127
    sew, 80% 21 Ann,Cas. 6561, There exists also the presumption
    that if ihe courts0 holdings had been at variance from the in-
    tent of the Legislature, a change would have been made in the
    law by the Legislature. (Republic Insurance Co, v. Poole, (Civ.
    App.) 257 S,W, 624, error refused,)
    The learned authors of the authoritative Texas Juris-
    prudence view this question as we view it, See Tex.Jur.Supp.,
    Vol. 6, Set, 42, on page 3999 where :it.issaid:
    "Intoxicating liquor, once having been voted
    out, can only be voted back by a majority vote of
    the identical territory which voted liquor out, y D ,,I1
    So long as the County of Dimmit in which Asherton is
    located is dry, no local option election in the City of Asherton
    can change the "dry"'status of Ashe'r'ton.
    Question No, 1: The substance of the first ques-
    tion you propound is whether, under the factual
    situation reflected in your opinion request, it is
    now mandatory on the Commissioners' Court of Dimmit
    County to order and have held a local option elec-
    tionin the City of Asherton on the issue of whether
    or not the sale of alcoholic liquors will be legal-
    ized in said City of Asherton, a petition proper in
    form having been presented to said Commissioners"
    Court by the requisite number of qualified voters
    Hon. Andrew P. Johnson, page 4   @JW-387)
    residing in the City of Asherton asking that such
    election be held.
    Our answer to this Question No. 1 is that, under the
    fact situation presented by you to us, it is neither mandatory
    nor proper that the Commissionerss Court order such election
    held. Asherton, being an incorporated city in the County of
    Dimmit, which county became "dry" by virtue of a county-wide
    election, it would be futile and illegal to hold such election
    in the City of Asherton as the result of such election would
    effect nothing whatever.
    We are not unmindful of the language commanding the
    holding of local option elections upon the presentation of a
    proper petition, as set out in Article 666-32, Vernon's Anno-
    tated Penal Code, but the "manifest reason and obvious purpose"
    of the statute just mentioned was to enable the people residing
    in a political subdivision to have the power to determine whether
    intoxicating liquor could be legally sold within its limits by
    holding a local option election so as to determine such question.
    It was not the purpose of the above mentioned statute to demand
    or require the holding of a useless election by a political sub-
    division which had no power to determine any question by such
    election, To so hold would be to sacrifice the manifest reason
    and obvious purpose of the law to a literal interpretation of
    the words used to express the purpose. This the law does not
    demand nor countenance, (See Kirk v. Morley Bros., 
    127 S.W. 1109
    , error ref,), (And we have not exhausted the authorities.)
    In all cases the legislative intention controls the
    language used by the Legislature, and in the construction of a
    statute confinement to the literal meaning of the words used is
    not necessary where the strict literal meaning of the words
    would be at variance with the intent expressed by the Legisla-
    ture. Weber v Ro an, 94 Tex, 62, 68, 5% S,W. 1016, 
    55 S.W. 559
    , 57mshev              v0 Galveston, H, & H,R.Co., 
    16 Tex. 516
    ; Harris Countv v. Smith, (Civ,App,%l87 S,W. 701.
    It has further been held that words should not be given
    their literal meaning when such would thwart the main purpose of
    the Legislature or would lead to absurdity. mG'
    108 Tex, 167, 188 S.W, 1037; Edwards v* Morton, 
    92 Tex. 152
    , 4b
    SW, 792; Winder v0 Kinr: (Com.App,) 1 S,W.2d 587, affirming 297
    S.W, 689; Leslie v. Grifhin, (Civ,App,) 23 S,W.2d 535, reversed
    on other points (Com,App,) 25 S,W,2d 820.
    We advise that the County Commissioners' Court of Dim-
    mit County is certainly not required to expend public money for
    the purpose of holding an illegal election the result of which
    would effectuate nothing.
    Hon. Andrew P. Johnson, page 5    W-387)
    SUMMARY
    The local option election inquired about
    would not be a legal election, if held, and would
    have no effect upon the present dry status of the
    City of Asherton.
    It is not mandatory on the Commissioners'
    Court of Dimmit County to order and have held the
    local option election in the City of Asherton
    which has been petitioned for.
    Very truly yours,
    WILL WILSON
    Attorney .,
    Qmera-iof   Texas
    GPB:wb                               Assistant
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    J. C. Davis, Jr., Chairman
    Cecil Rotsch
    Gordon C. Cass
    REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    BY:      W. V. Geppert
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-387

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1958

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017