Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1983 )

., ’
The Attorney General of Texas
November 9, 1983
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
Supreme Court Bullding Honorable Bob Bush Opinion No. JM-90
P. 0. Box 12548 Chairman
Austin, TX. 78711. 2548 committee on Judiciary Re: Whether a county court at
512,475.2501 Texas House of Representatives law must be located at the
Telex 9101874.1367
Telecopier 5121475-0266
P. 0. Box 2910 county seat
Austin, Texas 78769
714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dear Representative Bush:
Dallas. TX. 75202-4506
2141742-8944
You ask whether the legislature may create a county court at law
to sit at some location within the county other than the county seat.
4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 Section 1 of article V of the Texas Constitution provides in part
9151533.3484 as follows:
p 01 Texas. Suite 700
The Legislature may establish such other courts
,,ous,on, TX. 77002.3111 as it may deem necessary and prescribe the
713023.5686 jurisdiction and organization thereof . . . .
county courts at law are established under authority of this
806 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubjm3x. TX. 79401.3479
provision. Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. Civ. App. -
8061747.5238 Dallas 1956, no writ). The constitutional county courts are
established by article V, section 15 of the Texas Constitution. -See
also Tex. Const. art. V, 91.
4309 N. Tenth. Suite B
McAllen. TX. 78501-1685
5121682-4547
There is no constitutional provision which would require county
courts at law to conduct their proceedings at the county seat. See
Tex. Const. art. V, 91, cf. arts. V, §§15-17 (provisions on county
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 judges, jurisdiction, and= of county court).
San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797
512/225-4191
Article 1602, V.T.C.S., provides that all terms of the county
court be held at the county seat. However, this statute refers to
An Equal Opportunity/ county courts and not to county courts at law. Moreover, a statute is
Affirmative Action Employer subject to amendment or implied repeal by a later statute. See, e.g.,
Popham V. Patterson, 51 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1932); Townsend V. Terrell,
16 S.W.2d 1063 (Tex. 1929). Section 4 of article 1605~1-5, V.T.C.S.,
authorizes a commissioners court to designate facilities outside of
the county seat as auxiliary courts for purposes of conducting
non-jury proceedings.
P The constitutional provisions regarding county courts at law may
be contrasted with article V, section 7, which provides that a
p. 383
Honorable Bob Bush - Page 2 (JM-90)
district court “shall conduct its proceedings at the county seat of
the county in which the case is pending, except as otherwise provided
by law.” (Emphasis added). The underlined language was added by a
1949 amendment. See HJR No. 22, Acts 1949, 51st Session at 1496;
Table I, Votes onProposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution,
1875-1949, Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., at 1621, 1627.
Prior to the 1949 amendment to article V, section 7, the Texas
Supreme Court held invalid the creation at Texarkana of a district
court called the “Texarkana Court at Law” on the ground that a
district court must be located at the county seat. Turner v. Tucker,
258 S.W. 149 (Tex. 1924). Boston, and not Texarkana, is the county
seat of Bowie County. The legislature granted the “Texarkana Court at
Law” most of the jurisdiction in civil cases exercised by the district
court within Bowie, as well as much of the jurisdiction exercised by
the county court. The supreme court stated that “a court empowered to
discharge principal functions of the district court must be regarded
as a district court in giving effect to the command of the amendment.”
258 S.W. at 150. The 1949 addition to article V, section 7
invalidated this holding.
The Turner v. Tucker court also relied on article IX, section 2
of the Texas Constitution, which concerns the removal of the county
seat. The opinion noted that a county seat was originally called the
seat of justice in the county, and that to permit the establishment of
the “Texarkana Court at Law” at Texarkana would remove the county seat
without complying with the procedures set out in article IX, section
Subsequent cases have ignored this secondary holding in Turner v.
Tucker, or have overruled it sub silentio. The court of appeals in
Jordan v. Crudgi.ngton, 225 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth
1949, no writ), held that a statute establishing a court of domestic
relations was unconstitutional. The court’s jurisdiction would be
equal to that of a district court yet many provisions of the creating
statute could not be constitutionally applied to a district court; for
example, it di.d not require the court to sit at the county seat. The
supreme court reversed and found the statute constitutional except for
three provisions: it provided for terms of office of more than two
years; provided for the removal of the judge and clerk by the juvenile
board; and provided for a jury of fewer than twelve persons. Jordan
v. Crudgington, 231 S.W.2.d 641 (Tex. 1950).
In Cox v. Wood, 256 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1953), the supreme court
held that a juvenile court was not required to sit at the county seat
of Dallas County as it existed when Dallas became the county seat.
Thus, the Turner v. Tucker discussion on article IX, section 2, has
not been applied to legislatively created courts. See also Attorney
General Opinion C-391 (1965) (1949 amendment to article V. section 7
p. 384
Honorable Bob Bush - Page 3 (JM-go)
authorizes legislation locating district court elsewhere in county
than at county seat).
In our opinion, the legislature is authorized to create a county
court at law to sit at some location in the county other than the
county seat.
SUMMARY
The legislature may create a county court at
law to sit at some location in the county other
than the county seat.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
h
p. 385