OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Honorable R. E. Stone 

County Auditor 

. 'Cass County 

Linden, Texas; 

\, ? 

Dear Slr:~ 

AUSTIN 

Opinion NO. Q-3383 

Re: 

missioner's Tlxe Xarranta 

We assuxxe that you refer to aommissioner preoinots 

and not to defined road dlztrfcts in the question stated above. 

Therefore, we oonstrue your questions as followsr 

Ftist, can a oounty oonmiscioner~s Court legally 

issue time warrants for road msohinery not provided for In 

the 1941 budgot, thereby oreating additional future indebtedness sgsinst the oounty? 
e. . 

1 . 

. . 

Honorable R. E. Stone, Page 2 

Second, what is the oontrolllne faotor in ddtermfning the maximum smount of time warrants that oan be issued or 

future indebtedness,that can be oreated against a oounty? 

Generally speaking, wvithout special euthorlty, the 

oourt ohorged with the administration of the business affalre 

of the county Is without the poser to isnue negotiable seourltiss, depriving tha county of true defenses against the origlnal oroditor. This restriotion does not, however, Rrevenb 

a county from entering Into contraots for publio Lmprove:;;ents 

and issuing non-negotlsble interest bear@ warrants in payment thereoi. The co.zv&sioners court has t?d power to inour 

lndebtedn+s not only to the extent of the revenues of the oounty durin,r the term of office of such oommlsslonerc, but also 

to the extent of contraotlnF, away revenues uaich will bo oolleoted during many years, and to evidunoe the indebtedness by 

lnt8iast bearing v;arrsnts. The powar of the oo~mmissioners 

coUrt to issue warrsnts exists by virtue of Its power to provide pubI: buildings and improvements and to create a debt 

therefor, Counties hsve pov:or to oontroot for the construotion of courthous8s, or for the improvernont 0r publio roada, 

on the genersl oredit of the County, and may iSsUe as evidence of Indebtedness thereby Or8ated interest bearing wsrrants of the county. (Brisdgeis v. City of Lampnsaa, 249 

S. X. 1083; Lasatar v. Lopez, 

aenoe, vol. 11, p. 63). 

217 S. W. 373; Texas JurispruWe respeotrully answer your first question in the 

affirmative. Provided, however, that at the tile the oontraot of purchase is made, a tax is levied to pay the dabt 

and interest thereon as provided in Seotion 7, Artiole 11, 

Of the State COAStitUtiOn. (Also see Austin Bros. v. Xontague County, 291 ;j. 'vi. 628, 10 S. ?I. (26) 707, 27 S. ‘il. 

(2d) 144; Colonial Trust Co. v. IX11 County, 294 S. X. 516). 

The fact that the above mQAtiOnfJd time wsrranta 

were not provided for in the 1941 budget Is imaterial. 

Rowever, after the lssuanoe of said warrants, tha obllCation 

evldenooa by the warra.nts must be shown in the subsequent 

budgets of the oounty. 

Civil Statutes). 

(Art. 609a-9, brAOn'S Annotated 

171th referenoe to your seoond question, the eontrolllnf faotor determining the msximum amount Of time warrants on iuture indebtedness that oan be oreated against a 
“. . 

. . 

. . 

Honorable R. E. Stone, PSg0 3 

oounty for the SboV8 mentioned purpose is oontrolled by Sad.' 9, 

Art. 8 of the Stste Constitution, and Artiole 2352, Vernon's 

Annotated Civil Statutes, which authorize the oommissioner~e 

oourt to levy and oolleot a tax not 0XO80diAg iift80n oenta 

for road and bridges on the one hundred dollar valuation. 

Therefore, you are advised that the commissioner*e 

oourt oan legally issue any amount Of time warrants not 8x0 

oeeding the statutory and constitutional llmltstlons above 

nant lonad , provided, that at the time the oontraot of purohase 

iS made, the taxes sre 18Vi8d to pay the debt and interest 

thereon as provided in Seotion 7, Artiole 11 of the State Constitution, together with all other outstanding obligations 

which are to be paid out of the above mentioned tax. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNRY CENERAL,OF TEXAS 

BY 

baa11 willima 

Assistant 

APPROVECAPR 30, 1941 

hi -&= ATTORNEY GE~TZRAL 0~ TEXAS