Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

-
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN 11
Honorable l?ewell Cambron
County Auditor
Bopklna County
Sulphur Springe, Texas
DA Sirs Opinion lo. o-6755
“Bnol~seed you vi11 f
extracts from the ‘minutes
of Hopkins County.
ounty and the
time of additional
00.00 (making an
*for the further
16, 1929, a citizens
to &!a~ mm-
the issuance of these bonds realized
ttla chance of the approvnl of then&
ng election unless the citizens had
nce aa to how thb proceeds of these bonds
vould be used. The committee then made rpeclfic
recommendations aa to vhat made bend phoney should
be spent on and further advooatsd th+t $250,OOO.O(I
Honorable Newell Cambron, page 2
of the $1,083,500.00 be set aside and issued from
time to time for the purpooe of maintaining the
roada constructed by bond proceeds and that no more
than $12,000.00 per annum be issued for such maintenance
purposea. The Commissioners Court passed an order
on May 28, 1929, committing itself to use the pro-
oesde of any bonds approved at the approaching eleo-
tion in substantial nccordanoe with tho rsccmmendatlone
of the citizens, committee,
“The aitizens of the County a roved the isau-
once of the bonds and to date $~,``!,ooo.oo of the
$1,750,000.00 total has been issued.
%I would like for you to ansuer this questiont
Is ths present Gomissioners OoUrt bound by the or-
der paseed by a previous Court on Hay 28, 1929, or
wag .thla order merely a declaration of polfcp subject
to amendment, modification, or change by later Corn-
missioners Courte? Xr short, can the Commissionera
Court .of Hopkins County issue more than $12,000,00
worth of bonds peg annum for maintenance purpose&t”
We will not* quote from the County Commissionera* order
entered May 28, 1929, elnce aald order l.s aopied at length In
Murray v. Williamson, 32 9. W, (2d) 863, p.864. It ha8 been
repeatedly held by the appellate aourts of this State that
where a county Mmmlsslonaret court entbrs a pro-eleotlon
lrder deslgnatlng the road8 and spaaifiaally declaring the
purposes for which the bond money ia to be exqendcd, aald oom-
missioners * court or subeequent &mnnllssioncrs courts cannot
change the designation of such roada or expend the monsy for
ana other purpose than that specifically designated in the prs-
slectlon order. Black v. Strength, 246 3. W. 79; Qulsenberr
Mitchell, 2 2 9. W. 160~ Fletcher v. Ely, 53 S.W. 817 !a;:
,ror refused P f Murray V. Willfamaon, 32 8. W, (26) The Com-
mlssionera’ Court of Hopklne County entered an order on Hag 16,
1929, ordering an election to be held throughout ths County an
Jul 5, 1929, relative to authorieing the Commisaionerst Court
to 1 asue the bonds In question. The pertinent part of the, re-
election order entered by the Commissioners’ Court on May 2Es ,
1929, provide8 as followst
“We further find and recommend that the $250,000.00
set aside for maintenance only be prorated to the four
cmlssioners~ precincts, equally, and be leaued and
used in amounta not exceeding $12,000.00 per year, which
vould be $3,000.00 per year for each precinct.”
h
Ronoreble Bowel1 Cambron, page 3
The order entered by the Commiealonere’ Court of
Hopkins County en May 28, 1929, was before the Texarkana Court
of Civil Appalls in the case ,of Murray v, Williamson, su ra.
The Court of ClvIl Appeals held in said opinion on page 8 60
aa f ollova t
“The writer expreaaing’ his opinion further
thinks that the order of the commissioners8 court
of May 28, 1929, should be regarded, aa the trial
court did, as in effect a pre-election order. Black
v. Strength, 112 Tex. 188, 246 S.W. 79. By the
order 80 made, considered in Itp, entire@ and
fairly construed, It VQB contemplated and Intended
that in no event should any of the 10651 county
roads named be abandoned, nor In any vise nor ln any
event ehould the allocation of the ~utn to be expend-
ed on such roads out of the proceed8 of the bonds
be otherviae used or diverted. In this vIev, the
horder of the commissioners court should be lntsr-
pretcd ae abeolutely eatabliehlng and deelgnating
the loaal road involved in the preeent suit as
leading from Sulphur Springs near Martin SprLngs via
Reily Sprlnga to c’ounty line as a road to be aonn-
struated or aided out of the proceeds of the bonde,
and aa setting aside for use such amount aa might
be needed for the c~onatruction of the full length of
the road, and Including a connection with the state
highway running north and south, although and not-
vlthstanding the route of such state highway In
final deslgnatio~ vae laid to run,. not along, but
away from, such road. Likewise the Bhooks Chapel
and Cross Roads road involved In the suit was to be
construoted or aided out of the prooeeda of the
bonds.
,."Therefore the plaint~ff~‘vould be entitled te 1
haie the routes 80 absolutely fIxed by the order en-
forced to the full ext6nt of the order, in the event
the commlssioners~ court refused or failed to expend
or we the proceeds derived from the bonds and allo-
cated, to the local roads mentioned in the aonstruotlon
of such local roads ; . .”
In view of the holding In or14 oplnlen and Q&e other
ruthoritiea herein quoted, we are of- the opinion that the bmmit~-
sioners’ Court of Hopkina County lm bound by the ordel. of May 28,
1929, and that aaid Commissioners’ Court cannot Is8ue mere thPn
-
Honorable Newell Oambron,. .$age 4
Twelve Thousand Doliars ($12,000.00) in bon& per iumum for maln-
temnca purposeer
We trust that this eufficlentl~ armwere pour queat?.ene.