THEA ORNEY EWE 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Henry C. Grover 

Chairman, Counties Committee 

House of Representatives 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. c-28 

Dear Mr. Grover: 

Re: Constitutionality 

House Bill 450 of 

58th Legislature. 

quest, 

Of 

the 

Your request for an opinion reads as follows: 

"As Chairman for the Counties Committee, House Bill 450 by Cavness, Cain, 

Ritter and Foreman has come before me 

during this session. 

"As I understand it, this is a bill 

to enlarge the jurisdiction of the present 

County Court at Law and create concurrent 

jurisdiction with the County Court of Travis 

County in matters of eminent domain and probate. 

"The question was raised before this 

committee as to whether there might be 

some constitutional llmltatlon In giving 

County Courts at Law these additional 

powers as outlined in this bill. 

'%I11 you please'rule on this question 

so that we may act on this bill with an 

understanding of Its constitutionality." 

The title of House Bill 450, attached with your rereads as follows: 

"AN ACT amending Chapter 136, Acts 

of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session, 

as amended by Chapter 166, Acts of the 

51st Legislature, Regular Session, by 

creating a County Court at Law No. 1 of 

-116- 
Hon. Henry C. Grover, page 2 (c-28) 

Travis County, Texas, In lieu of the 

present County Court at Law of Travis 

County, Texas, providing for the appolntment, electlon, removal and salary of the' 

judge thereof, and making other provisions 

relative thereto, Including 'provisions that 

such County Court at LaW No. 1 shall have 

the same jurisdiction as the present County 

Court eat Law of Travis County, Texas, and 

in addition concurrent jurisdiction with 

the County Court of Travis County..and any 

other numbered County Court at Law of Travis 

County, now or hereafter created, as to all 

matters of eminent domain and as to all probate matters as may be assigned to It by the 

County Judge of Travis County, conforming the 

jurisdiction of the County Court of Travis 

County thereto, providing that the County 

Court of Travis County shall have and retain 

concurrent jurisdiction in all matters of 

probate and eminent domain; but not as to 

other matters civil or criminal; providing 

a severability clause; and declaring an 

emergency." 

An examination of the body of the Act reveals that 

it Is in conformity with the title above quoted. Since 

House Bill 450 contains but one subject which is expressed 

in its title and the body of the bill 1s In conformity with 

the title, it is our opinion that the provisions of Section 

35 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas have been 

complied with. 

Section 1 o,f Article V of the Constitution of Texas 

provides as follows: 

"The judicial power of this State 

shall be vested in one Supreme Court, In 

Courts of Civil Appeals, in a Court of 

Criminal Appeals, In District Courts, in 

County Courts, In Commissioners Courts, In 

Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in 

such other courts as may be provided by law. 

"The Criminal District Court of 

Galveston and Harris Counties shall continue with the district jurisdiction 

and organization now existing by law until 

otherwise provided by law. 

-117- 
Hon. Henry C. Grover, page 3 (C-28) 

"The Legislature may establish such 

other courts as it may deem necessary and 

prescribe the jurisdiction and organization 

thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction 

of the district and other Inferior courts 

thereto." 

Since House Bill 450 is an Act "creating a'~County 

Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, Texas, in lieu of the 

present County Court at Law of Travis County, Texas'.and 

provides for its jurisdiction and organization, it Is an 

exercise of constitutional power granted the Legislature 

pursuant to Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of 

Texas, above quoted. 

(Tex.Civ.App. 1956). 

Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201 

Section 15 of Article V of the Constitution of Texas 

provides that there shall be established In each county in 

this State a county court , and Section 16 of Article V of 

the Constitution prescribes the jurisdiction of the county 

court. 

Section 22 of Article V of the Constitution 

reads as follows: 

of Texas 

"The Legislature shall have power by 

local or general law, to increase, diminish 

or change the civil and criminal jurisdiction of County Courts; and In cases of any 

such change of jurisdiction, the Legislature 

shall also conform the jurlsdlctlon of the 

other courts to such change." 

Section 4 of House Bill 450 of the 58th Legislature 

provides: 

"The County Judge of Travis County, in 

his discretion, may from time to time, by 

order or orders entered upon the minutes of 

the County Court of Travis County transfer 

to the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis 

County or to any other numbered County Court 

at Law of Travis County, now or hereafter 

created, any such probate matter or proceeding then pending In the County Court of Travis 

County and all processes extant at the time 

of such transfer shall be returned to and filed 

in the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis 

County or any other numbered County Court ate 

-1180 
Hon. Henry C. Grover, page 4 (C-28) 

Law of Travis County, having jurisdiction 

thereof, now or hereafter created, and shall 

be as valid and binding as though originally 

issued out of said County Court at Law No. 

1 of Travis County or any mother numbered 

County Court at Law of Travis County, now 

or hereafter created. The County Court of 

Travis County shall have and retain concurrently with the County Court at Law No. 

1 of Travis County and any other numbered 

County Court at Law of Travis County, now 

or hereafter created, the general jurisdiction of a Probate Court and the jurlsdiction now conferred or which may be conferred by law over probate matters." 

Since county courts have jurisdiction over probate 

'proceedings, the question arises as to whether Section 4 

of House Bill 450, quoted above, diminishes the county 

court's constitutional jurisdiction, in violation of the 

Constitution. It Is our opinion that it does not. This 

precise question was settled in State v. McClelland, 148 

Tex. 172. 224 S.W.2d 706 (1949). wherein the Sunreme Court 

of Texas-held a statute creating a Probate Court of Harris 

County and granting It jurisdiction concurrent with that 

of the County Court over probate of wills, appointment of 

& 

uardians and other matters, to be constitutional. Section 

likewise provides that the County Court at Law No. 1 of 

Travis County shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the 

County Court of Travis County, and is, therefore, in our 

opinion, constitutional. 

Since House Bill 450 of the 58th Legislature Is an 

Act providing for the creation and organization of a county 

court at law and conforms its jurisdiction to other courts 

In Travis Counts. vou are advised that House Bill 450 is 

constltutional.V~ Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201-(Tex. 

Clv.App. State v. McClelland, 148 Tex. 372, 224 S.W. 

26 706 A 

1956); 

1949); 3 ordan v. Crudglngton, 149 Tex. 237, 231 

S.W.2d 41 (1950'); Lord v. Clayton, 

718 (1961); Ex parte Towles, 4U Ex.-413 

County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. '133, 41 S.W. 

SUMMARY 

House Bill 450 of the 8th Legislature, 

creating a County Cou at Law No. 1 of 
Hon. Henry C. Grover, page 5 (C-28) 

Travis County, Texas, in lieu of the 

present County Court at Law of Travis 

County, Texas, is constitutional. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

JR:ms 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

J. C. Davis 

James N. Stofer 

George Gray 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Stanton Stone