Hon. Waste L. Rartmn ODlnlon No. v-u00 AC-9 

Count Attorney 

&Do;; ? comlnf;y Rer Whether aounty mrj i&sue 

# bonds or time warrants ?a’ 

the purpose of ptwcharing 

fire fighting equipment to 

furnish grotectlon to cltlzens residing outside limits 

of incorporated cities and 

Dear Slrr towns. 

In, your letter o? May 14th you request the opinion 

oi this oiiioe on the question of whether a aounty my isme bond6 m time warrants TOP the purpose of purchm?~ing 

fire fighting equlpacnt to furnish IPotection to CltlGen? 

nridl 

“& 

outside limits of Incorporated cities and tofins. 

As poln ed out infyour letter, the only statute that anthorimr countles’under 350,000 population to furnish fire 

protaotlon ?or such purposes and purchase equimnt therefor 

Is Artiole 235la-1, V.C.S. This statute authorizes the purehem of such equilxnent, however, only after an election far 

4bnt pubpose is held, which election carries by a msjmity 

*sk. In this comect$~, APtlele 235&x, which,applles to 

aountfes o? ffes,i sted population bra&eta, has bee 

thle office in A &” tomey Qeneml Opinion Ms. O-3417 % 

held w 

19&) 

to be twvx?nst!-tutema1 an the @OrnflB that it lo bi 1oeal or 

l peaial law rattemptil,ng to regulate the s??airs of asunties. 

Art. III, Se@. 36, Tex. Con&. The valadit$ o? &t%ele 

warn metrai.neB by Attmney Gexm~a.2. 0pinRot-i No. O-4300 

8nd the opkxdm fu.&+he~ held that papnt for fire 

fightlB@ eqnQ!msnt should be 

Pm&. 

eP'Pgeat8uQcmr&ygenor81 

As you mentla In your letter, th Ias-• of 

baa&~ m tfr* warrants for the purobue of raoh eq6Ius.mt 

is not expressly authorited In Artlele 235%8-l, Article 

%33la-4 does eSpmssly provide for tb is8Uum eoftln 

‘(1y*u3~ts and bonds far the purchase of fire fighting equip 

asnt 4e po4eet aornty-owned property lee&ted within 4hs 

ogzty bu4 without the limits of any lneaporated uit 

t 

Ed 

In vlaw of theme huts, it 18 yomr opinia tb there 

was io legldative inknt that time warmts or bonds could 
Eon. myne L. Hartman, page 2 (V-1200) 

be limed ander the parisions o? kticle 2351r-1. We 

qree tith your oonalusion. 

It ie mnlfeet tbt bonds amy not be lrrued for 

8u#h pmpse, for there is iio eixpese authority therefor msnted in Artlolc 235la-1. The Surname Court‘of 

Text&i In the oam of 

217 S.Y. 373, 376 (1 

ii0 tb~. 179; 

6 oollpt oh6rged 

burinerr rffslrs of a oo\mty Is without the power to ire 

me negotiable securities, degiving the aomtr 

of true defense8 against the imiginal oredit-. 

has been from an early time." 

tbmqhout.) 

(Empbasia &dad 

In the ease a? Ke 

Cor.~ App. 19281, the aour --tff&s&n:: :i,v;; zEe6%~?=* 

l 8tabli8hed doctrine mnounoed In the 

tht the power to Issue bonds is one w ff!%% ::;id",," 

saopa of power of the governing body of a olty or oounty 

rmlerr It. i8 epealall~ granted. 

Aa the statute does not expeosly authorize the 

IrLlpMae of bonds, no suoh power exists. As to the i8- 

mmnoe of time warrants, a more diffl'cult qtmmtiem l.8 mBrkntsd . 

On September 28, 1935, this offiae rendered w&t 

i8 IoMnm a6 the "Somervell County Opinion." It was a 

letter opinion sddre8sed to Han, W. P. Dume, Dallas, 

%bX&S. This opinion was given wide circulation among the 

mrlous counties of the State. Among other things, it 

held th8t tlr warrants oould not be Issued against the 

gem-1 fund of a county. The opinion held that the ollprent operating expenses of a county must be paid out of 

th+ general fund, and that present oument op8ratlng exlllpln8 8hould be paid out of ourrent funUs. It WEB held 

that ftfti\Fe tax levies for the general fund aould not be 

mbrskrrd to my current operattig erpen8es. The SomeOil C-t? Opinla ~6s mfflrmed In 1939 by Confermae 

opinion lo. 3095. 

In ttm owe of 

bM, in effeat, tht 6 
Hon. W6yne L. Hartman ,page 3 (V-1200) 

authmlty to establish pub110 roads, It had the l~~pllod 

r to Issue time warrants for the oonstruotlon there-, 

However, It is-emphasized that in speak&g o? the 

le&6n~e of time wmrants, the court alw6ys referred to 

the -king of public lnmroveme~ts~ 

In the o&se of 

(Tex. Clv. ~App. 19&O, 

~146 S.W. 2d 3Wt; 

e ‘Court held th6t 

under a statute expres ng counties to pwovide for annual exhiblts~ of hortloultursl and agrioultau-6~ p~cdwts, such oountles have the -plied power to 

iesue time warrants for the purpose of constructing permanent Improvements to the exhibition building. As in the 

a&se, the implied power to issue time warrants Is 

to lmurovemvnte. The oomt held the ?ollowlng: 

u A cotmtj, subject to the exp~ees 

restrich& imposed by the Constitution and 

general laws, has the power to issue time 

(146 S.W. 26 at 336.) 

There are'aases holding that the eonmissioners* 

‘court of a county has the Implied power to Issue time 

warmnate to eonstmmt the eoun%y oourthouse. However o 

we wish to emphasllse that %aa all %hese eases only wwere InvsImd o We know of no ease 

6 aounty h6a the implied power to 

issue warrants against the Bounty general fund. 

In the d6i3e s &he amrt oonsldered 

l?HiQler 29!Ta, s%cr%u%e au%howPir?les oountlmo 

to purchase vo%ing eaohixaea und p8y TOP %he mm by the 

isspnsnce of bonds, wamah%s, aer%ZMsatea of ltiebtednoes, 

OP sther obligatkms. The QQUP% upheld %he walldlty oi 

the ststute~and 8bl.d t % the hods in question crhou3.d be 

paid out of &he generaP fund. The cotawt, in effect, held 

that there W&B no oom~tf%u%foml fnlhfbltion whloh would 

prevent the Legiekatme from pm8ing 6 statuts 6uthowlslg 

the lssuanem of Oblig&%iQEM9 payable in f'utme years hsm 
Ean. W6yhe L.Hsrtm, page 4 (V-X00) 

the general fund. The court did mt hold that there was 

en Implied power to issue warrants or,otkr obligrflons 

pry8ble from the gemalfumd. 'Rm et&Me Itsell 6u- 

%horlze8 the lake of w&rr&at8. 

The original votl 

A@48 418t be., 

nmchine 6at (Son&e bill 34, 

4th C.S..%O, ah. 33, pe 601 povided: 

I 

. for the purpose of pJing for voting 

r&h&es, such ConbslonerB~ Con& Is hereby authorized to Issue bonds, aertlfloaGs of 

Indebtedness or other obllg6tions . . ..* 

r 

This language w&s ohm ed by House Bill 121, A&r 

8., 2nd C.S. 1937, ch. !b 

Seotion 6 of Artiab 2998): 

p. 1953, to read 6s fol1, . ?Qr tlm puPpow of p&ylng Toll wotlng 

m&es, suah Comlssloners Court is hereby 

ruthorlzed to issue bonds, and o~rtlflaates of 

i&ebta$mse, yuT&ntg, or other Obllg&%i~8 

. . . . 

The Legislature mu8t have Oonsldered that the orlgsot did not inolude tIm power to issue-warrants,~+ 

ottaerwlse it would not have added "warrants" by the 1937 

amendment. 

The am&, in the '"yc~un~" 

6pporrl the c6se of Hidalfzo 0 

that case the v&lldlts of certain time wrrrants Issued 

z&%;%&the general ?&I for tick eradioatlon purposes was 

The court held the warrants to be valid. Eowever, th;, qtmstlon whether tin@ W&rmtits Omld be Issued 

agrlnat the gemera fund without express le lslatlve authmlty ma ntit involved, for Se&ion 5 of ir tlole 1525e, 

v.r.a., ezqmzssly authorlml the issurnoe a? such wmrm4s 

in tha ?OlbBWing hll@l&@!: 

. and it is hereby mado their duty to 

&&pi&e Bonqw e&o? the meral ?kmds of 

their oow%les, to incur indeb can es8 by the ( 

issu6noe of warm&s, and te lewy tama to par 

thm IMerest thereon, rap9 to moolde 6 sinking 

fund fcm the pyment thvreo? . . *." 

The other 06se involvi 
Hon. W6yne L. Iiartmm, page 5 (V-1200) 

with sonroval _- in the Bex@Y&an%z c&se. However, as in the 

BsxaP cowl ,sesa a stetute exm8ly 

atithorlzsd Fi$estlon. The ihatu%o &uthorlzed funding ae&ain indebtednesses Into bonds. 

We have not found any o&se which has held t&t 6, 

COMty IMY iSSUe tillil! Wl'l'ZUltS 8@ll8k8t the @liCT6l rpRd 

without express authority. Conversely, in the cases which 

held that there Is an implied power to Issue time W&rP&nt8, 

only permanent-type improvements were involved. 

As we mentioned earlier In this opinion, Ar%iele 

25518-4 ex~essly suthorlzes the issuance of time warr8nte 

and bonds to purchase fire fighting equiment to be,wed 

for the pro%ectf.on o? county-owned property located in the 

oounty but without tbe,llmi%s of an incorporated city or 

town. This statute was enscted In 1949 b 

l8ture (Senate Bill 401, ch. 575, p. T 

the 51st Legis1121 . Section 2 of 

the rot provides, in part, as follovs: 

This Is clear legl,sPatlve reoognitlon that expreee 

legislative authi5M.t.y 4s mandatopy'before time warrentaagalnst the general fund may be isljued. Of course, the Legislature must be presumea to know that Rrtlele 2351a-l;vur 

slready effective. 

Two opfnions written dwf ,previous adminis 

tfonm OS this offfoe, Nos. 0-4475~1942) and o-7054 P 1%6), 

held that the power to issue time warrants aglnst the general fund was Implied ?rom the power to make expendittherefrem. These opinions construed the Be 

c&ses as upholding this prlnoiple. -- s 8 own in this 

n we disagree with such a construotlon, and Opinion8 

NOB, O-4475 and O-7054 are hereby overruled. It Is interest- to note that llrtlcle 23516-4 was et+so%ed,a?ter 4& 

rendition of those opinions. The language quoted above 

shows clearly that the Legislature did not so lnterpre* 

the statutes, and did not agree with those opltions. 

bhere is 1 lc In the holding that, without Iemlatlvedireotfon, t 

not be encumbered for 

ye-'. &rrent expmwes must be paid from %W general ipLd,., 
.arldfaitst 

I(he genera !I? o ? ëexp enm ub euU$ b e p a id l ,8 l,t ioor ues. fund in a fq~tt.zpa, year e&o&i be wailr?~~?.~. 

to gay the current expeiases al such future year, RIU: 

ehoul# not be eaddled rith the payment. of the current 

ex$hnaes of a year ten, twenty, or thirty fears in the 

pst. 

Without exgPess authtitg from the Leglelatwe, a county has no power to iseue time 

warrants payable from its general fund. !$harePore, a cmty 28 without authority to lseue 

~tirse wezmtnte undeb &tlole 23ga-1 In ljayment 

foe rire fighting eqtipeent. 

APBRorn~ Yewe very truly, 

Jesse ?,~Luton, Jr. PRICE DANIEL 

Reviewing Assistant Attorney General 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Aesistent 

w-s 

BP 

Assistant,