June 23, 1947 

Hon. Julian E, Weisler Opinion No. V-263 

County Attorney 

Washington County Re: Power of the County 

Brenham, Texas Com.bw.ionePsq Court 

to purchase land Pop 

Dear Sir: a county fair, 

Your pequeat fop an opinion is as followss 

aWaahin&.on County is desirous of 

acquiring and inp~oving a tract of land, 

to be purchased in fee by the County, to 

be used pemanently aa a County FairgPounds. D 0 

“Will you, thetiefore, let us have 

yollr opinion as to whether the county is 

authorized, under the ltw, to purchase 

lands fop such purpose? 

Article 2372d, V,C.S., reads in part as fol1owss 

“set, 1, All counties in’the State 

acting by and through their respective 

CosmiasionersP Courts may provide for annual exhibits of horticultural and agaicultural products, livestock and mlneral 

products, and such other products as ape 

of interest to the community, In connection therewith, such counties may also 

establish and maintain mueeuma9 including 

the creation of necessary buildings and 

other improvements in their own counties 

OP in any other county OP city in the 

United States, where fairs OP expositions 

are being held, 

%ec, 2, The Commiasionem” Court 

of the respective counties OP the ~OISIIliSsioners’ CouPts of several counties My 

cooperate with each other and participate 

with local interests in ming fop the 
Hon. Julian E. WeisleP, page 2 

erection of said bulldims and otheP irprovements as may be neoessare to accomplish the puPpoae mentioned in Section 1 

of this Act and for the assembling, erecting, and maintaining of such hoPtlcultura1 

and agPlcultura1, livestock and mineral ex; 

higits, and the expenses incident thepeto, 

(UndePqcoPing supplied) 

In the case of Dancy v. Davidson, 183 S.W, (2d) 

195, the County puPchased a buildizig u.ndeP the authority 

of Art. 2351, Sec. 7, V.C.S,, which says: 7 ~. 

"CommlssionsPs9 CoUpt shall D O .. pro-“ 

vide and keep in PepalP, couPt housea, 

land other necessary buildings." 

jailsi.,. 

,, 

.- 

This is the sole statutory source of power of 

the ConmissionePsq Court Pelative to county PaLIPs, and 

if any authopity exists for the purchase of land fop such 

purpose it must be derived fPom this statute. 

This DepaPtment, following the decisions of the 

Texas Courts, has repeatedly held that the Commissioners' 

CouPt is a court at limited juriadictibn and has only such 

powers as ape confePPed upon it by the statutes and Constitution of this State, either by express terms OP by necessary implication, Set, 1.8 of AFtiole V of the Texas Contititution, Article 2351, V.C.S.; Von Rosenberg v*~'Lovett, 

173 S.-W. 508; Galveston, H. & 5. A. Rye Co; v. Uvaide 

County, 167 S.W. (26) 1084, 11 Tex. Jnr. 564. 

The Cod held in that case that: 

'The poweP to pPovide is the poweP to 

pumhaae. 

'We, therefore, conclude that the conmia8ionePs' CouPt in the exercise of ita 

sound discretion Is legally authoPized to 

purchase the bu$ldiug Involved fop the intended puPpose. 

Directly in point is the case of Hoon v. AllPed, 

277 S.W, 787 (nit dismissed], which held that: 

"Bext In oPdeP is the fnafstence that 

the comiasioneps* GoaPt is without poweP 

under APt. 610 to issue bonds to pmchase 
Hon. Julian E. Weisler, page 3 

a site OP equiptint for the couPt house and 

jail as sought to be done here. The question as to the power to issue bonds fop 

site OP equipment, as an independent proposition, Is not involved. The poweP to 

Issue the bonds must be derived, fPom the 

statute Peferred to, and it must be looked to in order to a8CePtain whether the 

authority is given. The rule of construction, 'as often declaped by OUP Supreme CouPt 

IS" 

UtWhenevep a power is given by statute, everything necessary to make it effectual OP requisite to attain the end is 

implied. . e The grant. of an express power 

carries with it, by neCeS8aPy implication, 

every other power necessary and propep to 

the execution of the poweP expressly granted. TePPell v, Sparks, 104 Tex. 191, 135 

9.w. 519.' 

"The Pule of construction as declared 

in the above casea muat control the instant 

case. o a o In TePPitoPg v0 Baxter, 16 Okl. 

359, the SupPeme Court of Oklahoma, in construing a statute identical in substance 

with ours, held that the poweP given a commisslonePat couPt to issue bond8 to build a 

jail necessarily Implied the power to issue 

bonds to puPchase a site therefor, and that 

power to issue bonds to build a cowthouse 

likewise implied paver to issue such bonds 

to equip the same * D 0 e The conclusion is 

thePefoPe reached that the oPdep fop the 

election la not void fop vant of authopity 

to include the proposition fop the puPchase 

of site and equipment. 

In the above cited case the CoUpt held that the 

express power to build necesaapily f.ISplieS the poweP to 

purchase a site fop a building. 

Applying the principles of the above casea ~to 

the pPesent question, it is concluded that the Legialature in granting the CommissionePs9 Court power to build 

museums, buildings and otheP ImpPovements, did not intend that Said COZIUissiOnePs o Court should be limited to 

the erection of a atpuctUpe upon the propekty of another; 
Hon. Julian E. Weisler, page 4 

but on the otheP hand intended and implied that the authority to purchase a site OP a fair grounds existed in 

conjunction with the express power to build. 

A copy of the letter opinion of June 1, 1936, 

vith reference to Ft. Bend County, for which you made 

request, is hepevith enclosed. 

The CommiasionePsn Court of Washington 

County, under Article .2372d, has the implied 

authority to purchase land for a county fair. 

Yours vePy tPuly 

ATTORNEY GENRRAL OF TEXAS 

BY By 

Assistant 

JBR/lh/mv