### THE:TTORNEY GENERAL OF%-EXAS AUSTIN 11.TEXAS PRICEDANIEL ATTORNEY GENERAL Dsoember 2, 1947
Ron. R. E. Sohneidcr, Jr. Opinion NO. V-443 County Attorney Live Oak County Re: qualiriaations requirGeorge West, Texas ed of pot,itionera for a Commissi~nqrs~ Court order to create, alter, or 

### disoonti’nue a oounty 

### road. Dear Sir: Your request , asking for an interpretation 02 provisions in Article 6705 of the Revised Civil Statute8 of Texas, reads in part:

“The specific question involved is whether or not non-residents of the, county who are owners of a fee interest in real estate in the road precinct are qualified petitioners.” Article 6705 provides as follows:

“The Commissioners Court shall in no instance grant an order on an application for any new road, or to discontinue an original one, or to alter or change the coume of a public road, unless the applicants have given at least twenty days notice by written advertisement of their intended application, posted up at the court house door of the county and at two other public places in the vicinity of the route of such road. All such applications shall be by petition to the Conunissioners Court, signed by at least eight freeholders __,, in tho precinct in which suoh roaU is desired to be made or discontinued specifying ins such petiti th beginning and”termination of such road, provided an applimtion to alter or chanpe a road need not be Binned by 

### more than one free-“~“” holder of the oreoinct.* (Emphasis added throughout) We quote the following from Rex V. Johnson, 5 N. H. 520. 22 Am. Dee. 472:Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 2, V-443

“The next question to be determined is whether anything passed. by the extent. The objectionurged against it is, that it does not appear by the return tha,t the appraisers had the qualifications which the statute requires D It has been decided that an appraiser must have a freehold Andybe a resident in the county where the land to be appraised lies; and a return that the appraisers were
‘freeholders in the aounty”was held not sufficient, because there was nothing in the terms which imported that they were residents in the county. Simpson v. Coe, 3 N.H. 85. We have attentively considered the language of

-__ . . a

_ .,_

,, t _, ., ~~,~ tlder -_ ~,.

“, FtS -.- ,.,.
of town officers, it was provided that overseers of the poor should be ‘freeholders and, inhabitants of the town’

. Here it seems not to have been deemed enough to declare that they should be freeholders of the town, but the word Vinhabitants’ is added; and we have no doubt that a man who owns real estm a county, y, with strict propriety of page, be zzid to be a f 1anreeholder of that county, although he may not reside In it. We are therefore of opinion that the term lfree-“

.‘~.’ holders of said county’ do not import resi-

.‘~’ dents in the counte.” In Matthews v. People, 42 N. E. 864, 159 Ill. 399, it is said that:

*Recurring to the statute, it declares:

‘No person shall be licensed to keep a dramshop 0

. o Dby the authorities of any city, town or village unless he shall give bond in the penal B~URIof $3000.,

. . . . with at least two good and sufficient sureties, freeholders of the county in which the license his to be granted, to be approved by the officer who may be authorized to issue the license.‘

. . . . Inthe owstra atiu

l

### f t strtuttit la,8lorayrlnc TtMt 

### to SMtl’tdB **the :nttBt**  **,@f the**  **~&els** ture 

### andthan**omry cut**  **thet ihtenfien.**  **But** 

### thrintentfoB l



### f the 

### le~fslrturtis tobe de

### ttrmiBt@

frwathe languw wed 

### lh the 

### ad, tad 

### who2-t**ths** words 

### \yea 

### trt plain end 

### ttsily u#n?tnttod. tnc!

there 

### Isno ambigult~', there

statate 

### hare dots 

### not,-bya fairana reasonable construction, require the sureties to reside in the same county where the Incorporated town er tillage granting the license is looattd, and oourts are powerless to add a mWre8mDt aot 

### found in the statutemn 

### It laour opinion that, insofar as any real-

. 

### denotrequirement is concerned, WfreeholdeeM, In the .precinctW and Yreeholders of the precinct? must be 

### given the samemeaning. Wehave eonoluded that 

### suohtsnu, withfn themselves, do not imply thst a freeholder 

### mwt be s resident of the precinct. Under the provlslom of 

### Article6705,non-resident freeholders, having a fee interest in real estate in the road precinct, 

### arequalifled petitioaers o

“Freeholders 

### inthe prtoinot” 

### and "fretholders of the precinct? must be given the samemeaning insofar as a requirement ai red

### dence is oonoerned in qua~ifloations required
‘ai petitioners for a Commlss~onerst Oourt or- 

## derto oreate, alter or disoontinue s oounty ror* 0 Such tezme, 

### within themselver, 40 not 

### Implythat 

### a irteholdermustbe a resident of 

### theprecinot. 

### Underthe provisions 

### ofArtiele

### Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 4, V-443
6705, V.C.S., non-resident freehold&s hav- ~-inga~fee interest in real estate in 'the precinct are qualified~ petitioners. Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OF'TEXAS

APPROVED

CBK:mw:jrb