Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

Ron. Clayton Bray opinionHo. v-301
County Attorney
Sutton Couuty Rex Reconsiderationof
Sonora, Texss opinions o-178 and
o-7011,,relative to
use of cowthouae
space by abstract
firms in light of
subsequentcourt
decisions and the
submittedfacts.
Dear Sir:
Your request for au opinion of this office
i.8aubatantlallyes pollovs:
“your opinion 0-178~and ,o-7011,la-
valving the use of offices in the Court-
house, vas called to the attention of the
4o~sal~n~s' Cowt of this county and
they decided, In vi&f of Tarpant County
v. Rettlkln Title Co., 1% 9. U. 2nd 269,
vhlch vas dsted later thau your opinions,
that, although they could not collect
rent therefor, they could allocate to the
County Clerk the office apace formerly
uaed and rented to the only abstract com-
pany in the ooUuty for copying space by
all abstract companies. As a result,'the
abstract oon@any still uses the same of-
fice exclueivelg,keeps It locked when
not Ia actual use, and maintains an of-
fice directory sign in the rotunda of
the courthouse advertisingtheir ~looation
&nd the sales of Insurance,but nov pays
no rent. Buch abstraot company maintains
no other office and conducts all business
the?+e,both abstract and Insurance, and
maintains a private telephone. Al.1of
thle I believe is contrapy to the Rattl-
kin case and, too, our County Clerk has
sufficient office space to permit the
.
, s *
*
Hon. Cla$ton Brag - Page 2, V-301
copylz$ of records in the regular office
a . 0
In Opinion 1yo.o-178, rendered cm February
25, 1939, this department statedt
“It is a matteD of common lulovledge~
that a courthouseia designed for public
use and no one shouLU be allowed, Or pep-
mitted, to occupy it exoepC the pub110 of-
flclals named In the statutev”
opinion No. v-7oll, of this 6epaPtdmnt dated
Ja~uaxy 25, 1946, in support’of Opinion No. O-174, stat-
ear
“We know of.90 aataarity i& the Con-
mlsaloners' Court to expend cmn8y ZuuQa
for office equipmentend supplies to be
used ftr purposes 0tWr than County pur-
poses.
,
“Vhe~ court fialceuw,dieisrl’
knovledge
of the fact t&t vi& tie mouth and accum-
ulation of the public p@$@ord~the &bs&&ot
companies are a netseasmy IguiZUMnt of
modern busine&m l&f% szrd,
&e thPuns8lVeS a-
genttiof the public WhU’waaabe srird,copp
the Peoords as &@&a of the fIHJLtvidt~11
membera of the publlo.Wl;ePreceiv%ng
orders far the prepardW.onof’w~&bstPact.
“‘The Court fuWheP takes .guiWisl no-
tice that it h&a qevep been %he 6ustO&ain
any county in thititltetie POP the’Qounta to
exact ~‘POPLthe abst?wa$ oolapsnies``Wdi%
reasonable 1.186of the public reowda either
rent OP fees in the gu%sb of PeKll~ POP the
right to have aocess to lpndto *peat 81~8
copy the sam6, aa was well known to the
plaintiffat the time the .defen&antand
the other sbstmct coHIpani~i3 went into
business and made plant lnveatmnts.’
. ,.
Bon. Clayton Bray - Page:31 V-301
.(.
The court, in passing upon the Rattikin cas4,
aupra, stated that inasmuch as the question presented
,vIa naw to our jurisprudencethey would adopt the law of
8 foreign at+te amounceU In a Tenneaa4e case, Shelby
County v. &mphia Abstract Co., 203 9. W. 339, as the
l&w in Texaas:an& vhich is in part a8 follovs:
..
"We is11 to find any statutorypower
grauted to the quarterly county court or to
the couuty commlaaioneraof Shelby County to
lease any part cifthe:apaae in the offices
dealgnatbd for the uae of county Officials,
and ve think it la eleax.?@tit80 au&i author-
ity data. The pow4r,-if e*a$ent, on exer-
cise vould,ulve the leaaee.tha =iRht to con-
: tml the apace leased to himpr 1% to the
ekcluaion of other me&era of the.``io, and
the leases cotid be mulV-III
p:
the serious &nbarraaament``fothem whose
,. .~. ..A
,I;lghtb
to use the reglatryrooma ,+ndequip-
*ntcaq0tbe denied.
~1.,,, ..~.
‘,. .'lpthe ~abaen~e'oi.~r``tl;tosyauthorlty
no part of the rmiwi~ln``t@&nt,~useas a
: registry of deeds and a% @rt``of``a,courthouae
I)~Jbe leased to be~ua&~fo~..~.~eriodof
months or yeas8 for p*dvate~-putl?~ea``.``~t~
bulldings and the& equlgau4I3t~.are~ppb3.iC
pro-
perty held by the county, but in tzust for
the public use. 7 B+C.L. p. 948;'gtate v.
xiaxt,144 zIpa.107, 43 H~.E.--i++,
33 L.R.A, 118,
and note; 'i34c.3tur~v. 130 Qa.
Delrslb``.Coqnty,
488, 61 S.H. 23."
A county h.$ano power to le&ae,itrrproperty to
private persons ln t+ abaenc4 of a oonatitut+nal y?r
it8tut.o~ pewvlaleti``
kpreaaly Q1"iaplladly authoril;lpg
E&in.Clayton Way - Page 4, V-301
it t0 a0 60. The Bounty Wldlngs are public prcsperty
hela by the county, but in trust for the public use,
and a board of commlssloneFshas no power, unless ex-
p*esaly delegated to it, to allow such property to be
used for any but 8 public purpoge. (14 Am. Jup. p. 208)
The law does not contemplatethe use of the
o@uuty aourthousafor office space for private purposes.
fn your request yau state that the abe%ract company
mattntalnano other office but cotadwta its abatraot and
~Znsuraneebueineas in an offlae furnished in the county
caurthouce bf Sutton Cotuity. It is oaly incumbent upon
the county to $u??nlshsufficdentspace for record copy-
%.. (Art. 1945, V.C.3,) ;ttis assumed that the offloe
a? ~CountyOlerk of Sutton County has sufffia.eat offlge
space to permit the copying of receMs in the aw ,afar
office, and that the .samedoes not interferewiterthe
business of said office. This being true, it ta the
opinion of Chla Department that tbie w~ulcXmeet the Pe-
" qUrremen0 eb the law. In the case ol Park%nt County V.
Rattlkln !B%tlaCo., supra, there Was no cl&n as to the
excludve use of the space allotted nor was there any
ala&m that the appellee demanded mope privileges than
any ot&@ oltlsen; whereas, in your case, the space al-
lotted ia ezclsaive. To warpant the Commlsalone~at
htlS.‘t in 8Uthol’iZing the U84 Qf the @dffiC6 ia qU46tim
far Q@IIJI``space, it must be qhoWnth#it it i# Z&68%-
easy fop ti4 efflce of County CZerltte expixxxd $0 oa;M,
fer the voWme of basinasa. But to hme auffits%ent
spmg vitill;Ln the ofXIes of the County Clerk to 04x5 fQI:
She r%asands OS those desldng to inspa& aab cop ra-
cads bnd at the sa&e t+as @ant irXolvalvar u&e 0f tha
MX%a% aga;~evlthln the Cmrtbeuae to a;n&atNmt u%@-
pamy wrMkd sot ?m Wtrc~anmtad. In vlev OP the Z&w dLn-
n@amped iq the Taiwnt ti%bxtafidr
case, azxd,%W $Pats s,ub-
n;5t%ied,
dt Ir the op&tion of this I)egarQwW4t Wt *a
4rolualve usbeof MX?.ae space In @a6 SU8t~ OCWi8y
catr74tfiU$8e tiy eip a~!&%?iW6t OO!@pSZy Wit&d ZW,t b6 &%%tb&
buo*
&a Gtbliwia#$aners’ Goupt ma all08 @MI%-
$i$onaloffioes to the CWnty %,~k,
1’ if needed,
fernfmmishlq spasaoe to %he genepal p@iLLa tza,
%mapect and w r4~oz?d8,but Solely
not gr&M
epac~ein f&* cdunty ooukthovseto an abstrW3t
company for an offioe itswblah to con&et its
.
...
Bon, Clayton Bray - Page 5, V-301
.
business'to the exclusion of all others.
Yours very truly
ATTOFNEGENERALOF TEXAS
BW:jt;vb;djm
.
.
.’
:.
,i :
. .
~”
.,
.
”
*
..
3