Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
QROVBR SELLERS
ARORNEY GrNxRAl.
Ronomblr D. a. Grser
State Highway RngfnTfr
Auetfn 26, l%ule ”
Dear Sin
opinion lo. o-7233
RI: Under A.rtlole 82
hxar Penal Cod.,
OS the Braaway grad8
at
rrio oan the
enter
only at ,the plaoes
the City to rpsed cone tha ?raewy
and minl.mumepoed8, the MX~IUUDIto be
rty aiI+s. per hour. To adoomplfrh this
we prop088 to 6ntar into an agzmrnant with the alty or
Bouaton under ths authorit. or Artiolo 5673b, Vernon’s
Toxaa Olvil Statutea, however, berore taking any 6otlon
in the matter, wo would appreolate your opinion and ad-
tlra on tha roliowigg quoetlOnsr
“1. Under Artlolr 827a, seotion 8, or tha Texas
Penal Cod., or Artirlo 1085a, Texas Clril
Stetutor, oan the Oity or Houc#ton, a home
rule olty, bamd upon an enginesring and
Hon. i. 0. Grqer - Page 8
tmrii Investigation showing suoh spied
to be reasonable md prudent, legally sone
suoh Preeway for marlmua spaeds In exaess of
thirty miles per hour?
“2. Can t& city or Honaton, .s home rule'olty,
legally rone sush Bmeway for ninimws speed
end legally entoroe ths miqllmutaspeed re-
qulr6lMnt SO rixed?”
Art1010 827a, Seotlon 8, Vernon's Penal Oode, provides In
part as reil0w8:
*Itshall be unlawful ror any pereon. . . to drive
or operate a motor or other veNole within the oorporatr
IAnIts or an laoorporated oity or town, 9~ wlthfn 8~
through any town or village not inoorpordied at a greater
rate or speed than thirty (30) ailas per hour. . ,*
The fifth paragraph of said Arid~ls, supra, provides as
r0u0w0:
*That whenever the governing bodfes of insorpoxu-
ted .sItiea and taran In tNe Stat0 within thrir res-
protIre jurlsdlotions dotemlnr upon the baa18 of an
lx@nssring and trsfilo lnveatigatlon thst the msxlma~
rsasonablo and prudent speed at any Interseotlon or
other portion ot the highway, based upon the Iater-
seotlons rsllway grade orosslngs, ou1~68, hills, width
ati oond! tlon oi oarement and other oondltlons on suoh
highway, aid the sisaltrerrlo thereoa, Is greater or
hS$ thaa the sDeed 1inlits hereinbefore 8et r rth , raid
novernlna bodies shall have tl 6 Dower end autehorfty to
iietemlni and deolare the maxlmuihreasoxble md prtident
speed limit thereat; whlah ahall be efteotiva at ouoh
lnterseotlon or other plaoe." (FndorsoorIngoum)
'1yethink the last above quoted paragraph of the said stat-
ute olaarly authorizes an affirrmitlve answer to your quOstiOE number
one and wa so faswor It.
Now In regard to your seoond question, Art1010 1175, V.A.C.S.,
enumerating rarlous power8 granted home rub altire, pmvldrs In part
68 r0ii0mt
T3eo. 20. To lioenso, operat6 and oontrol the
operation or all oharaotsr of vehlolss using the publia
streets, Inoluding motorsyolos, automobiles or llks
Hon. 0’. (3. Grew - Page 3
vahloles and to orescribe the speed or the lama. , .*I
(Undomooring ours I
Ylao. 34. To enforoo all ordl5anoes neoassary to
pwteot health, $Ifs and pr~psrty. . . and to preserve
and anforoe ths%good government, order end seourlty ot
the olty and its lnhabltants.W
It appears to us that these seotlons 20 and 34 or the
statuts, supra, authorlse an arrimativs 6nswsr to your qaestlon
number two, a% WI 80 answer it. Espeoielly IS this true ror the
MUSO`` that wo hare found no State law fixing a mlnlisnm spsed for
~ehioolsr trsrrlo and oonsequently an ordlnsnae passed by 8 hoas
rule oity riling a mlnlinum sped ror rehfoular trairlo upoa oer-
taln stnets, would not br In oonfllot with any Stats law end la
valid 1i reasonable.
We hare not found any direot pnoedentr In ths law oases,
but the iollowlng 068e8 have been oonsldered ior their general 91%~
aiplbs in arriving at our 00501us10nsr
“Tha powera of muniolpal aorpo~tlons within the
HOW Rule Amendment6mbraoo all powers not prohibIted
by Constitution or statute.w Miller ‘1.. Waldo Co.,
01~. App., 80 9.W. P;d 403.
“Oitiss nap do. EU tNngs Leglslaturs oould have
authorlsod, not in rlo1atlon of Constitution or general
laws .* Bland Y. City Of Taylor, Clr. App., 39 8.w. 2d
aa, arrlrm4 ras T. 39, 67 3 .v. 2d 1033.
The puwers of a home rule city are derived fwn
Const. art, 11, 8 5, and hsnor express grant ot power
b Legislature la unneoessary and only limitations upon
Qf ty’a power nsed be oonsldered.* Yellow Oab Transit
Co. ‘I, Tuok, 010. App., 115 9.X. 26 435.
*The powers gr4k5teahoma-rule oltles undss oonstl-
tutloa are broad and governed as to 1fmItatfons otig
by Is ialatirs enaotment.* b parts Newbsrg, 140 Cr.
RI 21f ‘ 143 3.W. 2d 186.
*;vheth$r an ordlnanoe is unreasonable is a questLon
or law ror the oourt.* Mlka P, Leath, 20 Sb;‘I. 2U 726.
*But a court will not deoIare an oldlnanoe uxnessm~-
ablr unlsss It olearlp lppe6rs to be so.* xeet v. city or
Waoo, 273 s *we 282, 116 Tozas 472.
HA. D. C. &44r - Page 4
*It the matter is in doubt the ordlnanoe will be
upheld s" 2x part4 i;illchar, 278 3.‘::‘. 850.
"A city's regulation, relatfve t:, th4 us4 of ths
streetn by vehialea, whfoh 13 within tha,scope of ita
oharter powe+~, is not inhibited by State law or th4
Constitution, unlees there ia 4 oonf'liot.W Genusa V.
City of Houston, Texas, 10 3.X. 2d 772,
*A oity say prescribs additlo3al regulations a4 to
matters not oov4rcd by law.* Xiks v. Leath, 26 3.X.
2d 726.
*And ordinarily a oity may forbid the use ot oertaln
oonseated streets by partloulor ol.asses of vehlo14s.N
Raid v. City of Ft. ‘Soxth, 258 ‘3.i:;‘. 1114, 3rror Refused.
Xn vlsw of our oonoluslons, w4 have pretemitted 4 di4-
cuaslon of Article 1085a, V.A.C.S., as it ap;ears that suoh art-
iole nerely pertains to the laying out , aonstruotion and aoquisl-
tion Of a trsJway and aut!lorlzing ClOSiilfiOl- street3 near it3
iAt4rs4ctfon.
Se express no opinion oonoerning the contititutionality of
ths delegation of authority to cities 3zd towns oonta