Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

Honorable I. Predeoki
County Auditor; Galveston County
Galveston, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-7092
Re: May time warrants be issued
for the purpose of erecting
an arena and pavilion for
cattle exhibitiona?
Xc acknowledge receipt of your oplni~onrequest of
recent date, and quote from your letter as follows:
"Reference Is made to the above numbered
opinion in connection with expenditure of County
funds for the purpose stated, and.whiah It was
he1d.U the opinion that I received from you,
rendered by Honorable J. A. Rllis, Assistant
Attorney General, and approved August'Tth, 1945,
by the first Assistant Attorney General that the
funds in the County Park Fund whioh had been
budgeted for the p.urposeof erecting an arena and
pavilion for cattle exhibitions, could ,not be used
for that purpose.
"In Opinion Ro. O-2461 addressed to the County
Attorney of El Paso County and approved on June 27th,
190, a copy of which was-sent'to me, it was held
that time warrants Par the construotion of a live-
-stock exhlbition building could not legally be
lasued.
"After receiving the opinions referred to, I
transmitted to County Judge Theodore R. Robinson
of Wlvejton Couilty'theInformation, and he has in-
formed.me that he went.tomAustin and oonsulted with
your department a8 to the method of paying for the
livestock building'structures that were to be erected,
and that you advised him time warrants could begissued
for this purpose.
Honorable I. Predeckl, page 2 (O-7092)
"KPndly render me your opinion In connection
with the issuance of tFme warrants for this purpose."
Our opinion Number o-2461, addressed to the County
Attorney.of El Paso County and dated June 27, 1940, was evi-
dently sent to you by mistake. ~The Fdentlcal question in-
volved Ftithat opihi'onVas passed on by the 21 Paso Court-of
Civil Appeals'on December 12, 1940, in the case of Adams et'
al v. McGill-et al,' 146 S. W. (2d) 332~(writ.of error refused').
ThLsDepartment Intervened Fn that case on behalf Of the State
of Texas.
Article 2372d of Vernon% Annotated Civil Statutes,
reads in part as follows:,
"Section 1. All counties in the State acting
bv and through their reaoective.Commissioners' Courts
m&provide &or annual exhibits ``horticultural and
agrlculturalyoducts, livestock and mineral products,
and such other products as are of Interest to the
community. In connection therewith. such counties
may also establish and maintain museums, including
the erection --
of the,necesaarg buildings and ,other
Fmprovementa, In their own counties or 1ZXn~er
county or cFty~in.the United States, where fairs or
expositiona are being held.
%?a. 2. The Commlaaioners' C'ourtsof the re-
spe'ctive,aountLesor the CommPssionerst Courts of
several counties q ay'cooperate wlth each other and -
participate with local interests in providing-for the
creation-of such buildings and other improvements as
may be neoessary to accomplish the puPpose rentioned
In'Section 1, of this Act and for the assembling,
~srecting, and maintaining of such hoi-tiaultural and
agricultural, livestock and mineral 'exhibits,and
the expenses incident thereto..."
The El Paso Court held tha,tunder this statute author-
izing a county to provide for annual exhlbitlon of hortioultural
and agricultural products, but not expressly conferring power to
issue time'warrants to pay for improvements constructed for such
purpose, a.county had "implied power" to issue time warrants
payable over a period of years for improvements on livestock and
a@icultural exhibition buildinga. We quote from the opinion of
the court, as follows:
Honorable I. Predecki, page 3 (O-7092)
"In the case of Brldgers v. City of Lampaaas,
Tex.Civ.App.249 SW.l083,1084, writ of error refused,
this distinotion is drawn with great clarity. Then
opinion is by that great jurist, Judge Key. In the
opinion this proposition, taken ~fromappellant's
brief',was approved: 'It is generally conceded.and
will established that q unlolpal corporations are in-
vested by impllcat.ionwith the power to contract on
the general credit'of the city with respect to such
improvements as they are authorized to make.' The
section we have referred to above -inRuling Case Law
was quoted from with approval Fn the course of'the
opinion. The same section is cited In the case of
Clark v. W. L. Pearson & Cog.,121 Tex. 34, 39 S.W.
2d 27, 31, as sustaining the following proposition:
'The rule is well established that munFcipal'corp-
orations are invested at least with an implied-or
incidental power to contract on the general credit
of the city wlth respect to such improvements as
they are authorized by law t'omake.' Among the
numerous cases cited by Judge Sharp in support of
the proposition Is the case of Lasater v. Lopez,
110 Tex. 179, 189, 217 S.W. 373.
"It is-true that-the foregoing two Texas cases
we have.cited and briefly'dlscussed Involve the power
of cities. The case of Lasater v. Lopez, supra, cited
by Judge Sharp, involves a county. But we see no valid
reason why the reasoning doeb not apply to the action
of a'county acting within the orblt of its authority
conferred by law."
Youare advised/therefore, It is the.opinion of'this
Department that Galveston County, subject to the present re-
strictions imposed by the Constitution and general 1aws;haa
the power to issue'time warrants in payment for improvements
expressly authorized, to'-wit:for the purpose of erecting an arena
and pavilion for cattle exhibitions.,provided that the applicable
regulations relating to the issuance of such warrants are observed.
Very truly yours
ATTORRRY QERRRALOP TEXAS
By: /s/ Glaud 0. Boothman
Claud 0. Bobtbman
:;B&v$&RB 21 1946 Assistant
/a/ Carlo8 Ashlhy
FIRST ASSISTART ATTORNEY EiENERAL
APPROVED OPIHION COPlIEIITTRR
BY /s/BWB CHAIRMAM