Eonoreble Ft. C. Id&lain 

District Attorney 

Conroe, Texas 

Daer Sir: Opinion Number O-1190 

Rer Authority to expend moneys derived 

fr+s sale of road bonds In paring 

streets of en incorporated oity where 

the streets so paved are not a part of 

the county road system. 

We ers in receipt of your letter of Dsoember 8, in which you rsquest our opinion on the following question?. 

"Cw moneys derived from the sale of bonds that may be euthorieed to bs 

sold under end in conformity with said Article 752e legally be used for 

the purpose of paving the streets of ths City of Conroe ~dwrs the streets 

so pevsd ers not segmentsor parts of roads or highweys extending through 

the city?" 

The facts underlying your problsm ars briefly es followsr An 

election has been ordered whereat the proposition of the issunece of 

$2,OOO,OCO of road bonds is to be suhnitted to the qualified property 

taxpaying voters of Commissioners t Prscinct.$2, and that said bonds are 

to be issued in accordance with Article 752a.of the Revised Civil Stetutes of 1925, end for the purpose stated therein, namely -- "For the 

purpose of the construction, maintenance end operation of macedamieed, 

graveled or peved roads end turnpikes, or in add thereof.' Further, that 

said Ccnmnis~sioners' Precinct @ includes within its limits the.City of 

Conroe, a municipal corporation duly and prdperly incorporated; that there 

are tuu public roads or highways extending through the corporate limits of 

seid city, to-itit, Highmay $75, which is a pared street through the city, 

and Eighty =$105, which is not paved. You state also that it is the declared purpose that the proceeds from the sale of such bonds as may beg authorized 

at the above cited election are to be used for paving or hardsul'facing a 

great many streets within the city limits of Conroe that are not any pert of 

the highxys to be improved in the road district. 

You refer to the fact that Highmy $75 and Highmy $105 traverse the 

corpomte liTits of the CitiJ of Conroe. If said highTrays are a part of the 

State design&x? highway system, we ars of the opinion that the county or. 

district muld te preciuded frommakirg sny improvement on either of said 

two highnays. See Section 3 of House Eil1#%0%, passed by the 46th Legislature, Regular Session, 1939. The pertinent part of said section being: 
Hon. 5. C. GClain, pgs Z (o-1190) 

"All further imprcvemenw of said State highnay system shall be madeunder the 

exclusive and direct 3ontrcl of the State Highmay Department, end with appropriation made by the Legislature out of the State Bighway Fund." 

Further, said section providesr 

"Kc further improvements of said system shall be made with the aid of or with 

any conoys furnished by the countiee except the acquisition of rights-of-way 

which may be furnished by the counties, their subdivisions or defined road 

districts . " 

As e general proposition of law it is settled that the control 

end jurisdiction over streets of a municipal corporntion is exclusive in said 

corporation. Boxever, the courts have construed to the counties the right to 

expend fends in the improvement of streets within the corporate limits of e 

city nhen said streets were also e oublic road, particularly when done with 

the consent of the city. See Hughes vso County Commissioners' Court of %rris 

county, 35 S.?T* (24 818. This same conclusion was reached by the Supreme 

Court in the case of the City of Breckenridge vso Stephens County, 40 S.li; (2d) 

43 , wherein the court said; 

"The commissioners' court may expend county rbad bond funds for improvement 

sf city atree,ts forming pert of the county roads where made with city's~ 

consent." 

Tne general underlying theory bein, 7that such improvements must 

he sonfinsd to streets forming part of a county road system end also that the 

co3;ilt.y must have the consent of a municipal corporation withinwhich said 

stres~ts may 3e looatad. The Supreme Court in the Breckenridge case, above 

ci%ed, distinguished between streets forming a pert of a county road system 

and streets generally witbin the city. In that case the court held that the 

commissioners' court, could bind itself to expend county roadbond funds to 

aid the city of Breokenridge in improving "streets forming a part of county 

roads," and in the 'same case held that the.countv could not bind itself to 

aid the City of Breckenridge in improving 'streets." It is obvious that they 

intended to draw a distinction between streets, speaking generally of the 

arteries of traffis within a municipality, end such streets es form n continuaticn of a count;r road, but in any event a street which had b-seen designated 

by the county as 8 pert of its system. It will be noted that the cases above 

cite<, and from whish we quote, have particular reference to the proceeds of 

road bonds of a counQr. 'P'& find no cases involving the expenditure of proceeds from bonds issued by a read district. However, in our opinion, the law-s 

ap;?liceble tp the county are 1iker:ise applicable to the district. 

you'are thorefor advised that in our opinion the coun0~ is rrithout 

au~thority to pave .the streets of the City of Conroe where such streets do not constitute a pert of the county road syctem. 

Very truly yours, 

ATTCWEY GEDBBAL OF TBXAS 

By/s/ Clarence E..Crone 

Assistant