Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1960 )

*- ..
THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
.
Itfm&D~lo; H. Doherty qpinion #o. ww 785
San Au&umtlnej Toxar .Re: mother tht County Judge
or ,DIet,rIct
Judge 8ppolnte
Spealal Oonnalrelonersand
render6 Judgments In EmI-
nent Domain Prodeedlngs
Inmnneugu8tIne and Sablne
‘. l
Dea r lb r ? Do h e r fa w
We .haveJrourletter In which you request an opinion 18
mllow~r :
~%der S.& ‘Na.19,~ 56th iegialature;t&d, Cillod
V.A~.C:S. Arty. 1970-310, ~cimcernlng~ eminentT
8Jeerlon,
domain proaedurea,``doea th+ couilty judge or khe diatrlct
judge .make the appointment of the~apeoIal.conmIsaIoners .
$n condemnation.Mttcm e,rtainlng.to the state hlghuayis,
&nd IS the e0unt.y’
judge,~niakOr atiahappointment,Ia,the
SInal decltilonof iuch ~aom&rlone~, wider existing.law,
made the judgment o? the county or the,d,lstriotcourt?
Stitsd~‘another’uay, Is the petItIon norrtatemant 19
wrItIng oheking the appointment,?f such a board 4nd the
aonaequent aondemation hop. the rip-of-yay, Slled with
the.county or the dlatriat‘judge?
The above msntloried.
act la alro ,foundat Pages90 of the Acts
OS the Seaond Called Session OS,the 56th LegIaLature (1959:) the,
,
pertinent provlrlons of whlah~read ae’S~llo?rcI:
“Section 1. !SheeoUnty courts of the Counties OS
Sablne and San AquatIne shall retain and oontlnue-to
have aad exercise the general arinclnaljurlsdlctlon,
both orlgltil ah@ appellate, and the general jurladlc-
tion of ,probstecourts, and ‘all jurledictlonother than
in civil mattera, Including eminent domaIn~j&lsdlction
OS which Ia,hers conies-redon ,thedistrict otirt Sor
~8aId countlee, now or hereinafter conferred upon such
county oourts ,by the Constltutlonand ‘lawsof the state,
and shall retain all juflsdlctlonand power to lpsue .~.
writs neoesaary to the enforcement 0s~thelr~jur5.ndlctldn,
Hon. James Ii.Doherty Page 2 (w 785) .,
.,
and to punish contempt;'but,said bounty o&t8 shall ``
have no civil jurisdiction,except as to Mnal judgments
reterred to In Section 2 hereof,
"Section2. The district court OS tpe Firs+ Judl-
clal District having jurisdictionIn said~Countlesof
Sabi;neand San Augustine shall have and exercise jurls-.
dlsGlon In matters of eminentdomain and In all other
matters and cases OS a,clvll,.naturb,whether the same
be OS original jurisdictionor OS appellate jurls~lctlon, .,
over which, by the General Lawe,of the State of Te'xas
now exlstlng and hereinafter enacted, the county courts
of said count&es would have had jurisdiction; . . .'I'
You state that lrlncethe above act'provldes only foi?a
transfer of the jurladlctlonof the County.'.Court~
and not of the
County Judge, you have.doubt as to whether the District Judge has.
authority to make the appointmentof the special commlss~oners.
We presume that you have ref'erence~
to the,generallaw (Art. 3264
(2) R.C.S.) providing for Slllng eminent"domalriproceedingswith,
and appointmentof special commissionersby, the county judge.
You also statesthat ltiall the acts you haiieexamined which trank
Per eminent domain proceedings.from's county-,courtto another
court, you find that both the jurlsdlct$onof the county judge qnd
that of the county court are transferred.
The case of City of Dallas :v. Johnson,,.54-S.W.
(26)'1024
(Dallas C.C.Arj 19%‘) Involved the ~qusatlonralsed~by you,.the
specific question there under review being whether the Judge of
the County Court at Law No. 2 In Dallas County had the authqrlty'.
to appoint special commissionersIn condemnationproceedings,the,
contentionbeing made that the exercise of.such power ,restedalo
In the county judge. The Court overruled,khlscontentionand he: !r
d
that the grant of jurisdictionover eminent domain proceedings to .,,
the County Court at Law Included.authority In the Judge of that
Court to appoint special commlssloneraand :saldz,
"It appears, therefore,that the county court -~
of Dallas county, the county court of Dallas county
at law No. 1, and the county court of Dallas county
at law No. 2 have concurrent jurlsdlctlon~over all
matters that are prescirlbedby article 1970--3, as
the jurisdictionOS the county court at law No. 1.
This grant of jurlsdlct$onincludes the specific
matter under review. ..,...'I
In the later case of MIers v. Housing Authority & City OS
Dallas, 266 S.W. 2nd 487, (1954) b f th C t s cl 11 ,.,
ma, the question was raised"thEt'%e J&iy!S g Czuntyv
. -
Hon. Jamee Ii.Doherty page 3 (WW 785)
Court at Law No. 1 had no jurisdictionto try the can& because he
was pot the County Judge. The Court disposed OS this question by
one &hort paragraph reading as follows:.
"Arts. 1970--3, 1970-4, 1970--16, have been
Interpreted to mean that the County Courts of Dallas
County at Law Nos. 1 and 2 have jurisdictionto try
condemnationsuits. City of Dallas v. Johnson,_. Tex.-
Clv.App., 54 S.W.2d lbia,‘iit.
‘jia’g’e’
ibi&~tie overrule
appellant’spoint one.”
We also call attention to the emergency clause of the act
In question which recites the fact that the judges of the county
courts of the two counties of Sablne and San Augustine are bur-
dened with business Including eminent domain proceedings.
You ‘areadvised that in our opinion the District Court
OS Sablne and San Augustine GountIes, and the Judge thereoi,.has
comp1et.ejurisdictionover eminent domain proceedings In r%ld
countie8. Therefore, the petitions or statements In coudelrma-
tlon should be Sll,edwith, and the,apeolal commissioners;appolnttid
by, said judgi, and the award OS the commlssloners,,In the abeenoe
of objections,should be made the jadguient
,,, of tt&Dletrlct Court.
3uMNA.m ”
Under Chapter,7, A&s cif, the ‘SecondCalled
Seuslon of the 56th ,Leglslature, 1959,
(V.A.,C.S. Art. 1970-310) In ,Sablneand San
AugustineCo&t&es,, ,,petltlons or statements
In eminent domain prodeedlngs are to be
Slled with,‘and appointment OS special com-
misdionere are to be made by, the District
Judge, and the award of the special commis-
sioners, in,the,aba@nceof objections, Is to
be made the judgment of the District Court.
,Youravery truly,
WILL WILSON,
Attorney Qeneral . ,
Hon. James H. Doherty page 4 (WW 785)
-APPROVED:
OPINION CO!@UTTEE:
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
w. Ray scruggs
Donald Bernard
Charles Cabanlss
Leon Pesek
F@VIEWEDFORTHEA!M'ORNEY GENERAL
BY: Leonard Passmore
,