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 Andy be 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 

1 anreeholder 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 D by the authorities of any city, 

town or village unless he shall give bond in 

the penal B~URI of $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.‘. . . . In 
the o wstr a a tiu l f t strtutt it la,8lorayr lnc 

TtMt to SMtl’tdB the :nttBt ,@f the ~&elsture and than omry cut thet ihtenfien. But 

thr intentfoB l f the le~fslrturt is to be dettrmiBt@ frwathe languw wed lh the ad, 

tad who2-t ths words \yea trt plain end ttsily 

u#n?tnttod. tnc! there Is no ambigult~', there 

statate hare dots not,-by a fair ana 

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 la our opinion that, insofar as any real- . 

denot requirement is concerned, WfreeholdeeM, In the .precinctW and Yreeholders of the precinct? must be given 

the same meaning. We have eonoluded that suoh tsnu, 

withfn themselves, do not imply thst a freeholder mwt 

be s resident of the precinct. Under the provlslom of 

Article 6705, non-resident freeholders, having a fee interest in real estate in the road precinct, are qualifled pet itioaers o 

“Freeholders in the prtoinot” and "fretholders of the precinct? must be given the 

same meaning insofar as a requirement ai reddence is oonoerned in qua~ifloations required 

‘ai petitioners for a Commlss~onerst Oourt or- der to oreate, alter or disoontinue s oounty 

ror* 0 Such tezme, within themselver, 40 not 

Imply that a irteholder must be a resident of 

the precinot. Under the provisions of Artiele 
Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 4, V-443 

6705, V.C.S., non-resident freehold&s hav- 

~-ing a~fee interest in real estate in 'the precinct are qualified~ petitioners. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF'TEXAS 

APPROVED 

CBK:mw:jrb