Ron. Clayton Bray 

County Attorney 

Sutton Couuty 

Sonora, Texss 

Dear Sir: 

opinion Ho. v-301 

Rex Reconsideration of 

opinions o-178 and 

o-7011,, relative to 

use of cowthouae 

space by abstract 

firms in light of 

subsequent court 

decisions and the 

submitted facts. 

Your request for au opinion of this office 

i.8 aubatantlally es pollovs: 

“your opinion 0-178~ and ,o-7011, lavalving the use of offices in the Courthouse, 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 company in the ooUuty for copying space by 

all abstract companies. As a result,' the 

abstract oon@any still uses the same office exclueivelg, keeps It locked when 

not Ia actual use, and maintains an office directory sign in the rotunda of 

the courthouse advertising their ~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.1 of 

thle I believe is contrapy to the Rattlkin 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 courthouse ia designed for public 

use and no one shouLU be allowed, Or pepmitted, to occupy it exoepC the pub110 offlclals named In the statutev” 

opinion No. v-7oll, of this 6epaPtdmnt dated 

Ja~uaxy 25, 1946, in support’ of Opinion No. O-174, statear 

, 

“We know of. 90 aataarity i& the Conmlsaloners' Court to expend cmn8y ZuuQa 

for office equipment end supplies to be 

used ftr purposes 0tWr than County purposes. 

“Vhe~ court fialceu w,dieisrl’ knovledge 

of the fact t&t vi& tie mouth and accumulation of the public p@$@ord~ the &bs&&ot 

companies are a netseasmy IguiZUMnt of 

modern busine&m l&f% szrd, &e thPuns8lVeS agentti of the public WhU’ waaabe srird ,copp 

the Peoords as &@&a of the fIHJLtvidt~11 

membera of the publlo.Wl;eP receiv%ng 

orders far the prepardW.on of’ w~&bstPact. 

“‘The Court fuWheP takes .guiWisl notice that it h&a qevep been %he 6ustO&a in 

any county in thiti tltetie POP the’Qounta to 

exact ~‘POPL the abst?wa$ oolapsnies~ ~Wdi% 

reasonable 1.186 of the public reowda either 

rent OP fees in the gu%sb of PeKll~ POP the 

right to have aocess to lpnd to *peat 81~8 

copy the sam6, aa was well known to the 

plaintiff at the time the .defen&ant and 

the other sbstmct coHIpani~i3 went into 

business and made plant lnveatmnts.’ 

. ,. 
. . 

: 

,. .~. ..A 

~1.,,, 

‘,. 

: 

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 jurisprudence they 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 statutory power 

grauted to the quarterly county court or to 

the couuty commlaaionera of Shelby County to 

lease any part cif the: apaae in the offices 

dealgnatbd for the uae of county Officials, 

and ve think it la eleax.?@tit 80 au&i authority data. The pow4r,-if e*a$ent, on exercise vould,ulve the leaaee.tha =iRht to contml the apace leased to himpr 1% to the 

ekcluaion of other me&era of the.~~io, and 

the leases cotid be mul V-III p: 

the serious &nbarraaament~~f othem whose 

,I;lghtb to use the reglatryrooma ,+nd equip- 

*ntcaq0tbe denied. 

.'lp the ~abaen~e'oi.~r~~tl;tosyauthorlty 

no part of the rmiwi~ln~~t@&nt,~use as a 

registry of deeds and a% @rt~~of~~a,courthouae 

I)~J be leased to be~ua&~fo~..~.~eriod of 

months or yeas8 for p*dvate~-putl?~ea~~.~~~t~ 

bulldings and the& equlgau4I3t~.are~ppb3.iC property 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. Delrslb~~.Coqnty, 130Qa. 

488, 61 S.H. 23." 

A county h.$a no power to le&ae,itrr property 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 commlssloneFs has no power, unless exp*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 contemplate the use of the 

o@uuty aourthousa for office space for private purposes. 

fn your request yau state that the abe%ract company 

mattntalna no other office but cotadwta its abatraot and 

~Znsuranee bueineas in an offlae furnished in the county 

caurthouce bf Sutton Cotuity. It is oaly incumbent upon 

the county to $u??nlsh sufficdent space for record copy- 

%.. (Art. 1945, V.C.3,) ;tt is assumed that the offloe 

a? ~County Olerk of Sutton County has sufffia.eat offlge 

space to permit the copying of receMs in the aw ,afar 

office, and that the .same does not interfere wit er the 

business of said office. This being true, it ta the 

opinion of Chla Department that tbie w~ulcX meet the Pe- 

" qUrremen0 eb the law. In the case ol Park%nt County V. 

Rattlkln !B%tla Co., 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 allotted 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 qhoWn th#it it i# Z&68%- 

easy fop ti4 efflce of County CZerlt te 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 racads bnd at the sa&e t+as @ant irXolvalvar u&e 0 f tha 

MX%a% aga;~e vlthln the Cmrtbeuae to a;n &atNmt u%@- 

pamy wrMkd sot ?m Wtrc~anmtad. In vlev OP the Z&w dLnn@amped iq the Taiwnt ti%bxtafidr case, azxd ,%W $Pats s,ubn;5t%ied, dt Ir the op&tion of this I)egarQwW4t Wt *a 

4rolualve usbe of 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%- 

$i$onal offioes to the CWnty %,~k, 1’ if needed, 

fern fmmishlq spasaoe to %he genepal p@iLLa tza, 

%mapect and w r4~oz?d8, but Solely not gr&M 

epac~e in f&* cdunty ooukthovse to 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. 

BW:jt;vb;djm 

,i : 

” 

Yours very truly 

ATTOFNEGENERALOF TEXAS 

* 

3 

. . 

~” 

. 

. 

. 

.’