December 12, 1949 

Hon. James H. fsoom 

Couut$ Attorney 

Allgalf.aa county 

m.fkin,9 !&%9s 

0pinlon Ho* v-961. 

Ben The aatborlty of a subdivision of a county to 

hold an election to mDear sir: 

peal In that subdlviariou 

a stook law prevlollrrly 

voted by the oomaty as 

B whole. 

Beferfmoe is made to yollp remeat request wh+h 

ruwus in part aa r01>0w8: 

“This County reoently held an eleotlo& 

under.the provlelon of mtiale 6954 whlah remalted in favor of the stook law, prohibiting 

ip rtmting et large of the aattfle ,namyi there- 

. 

:“The qwetion now arises a8 to whether 

any 8ubdLvlsion of the aounty la entitled to 

call an election to re’ 

siibdltision. Article i!? 963 prov#es~for the 

al the Uiw in that 

repeal OS the law throughout the whble County, 

but the statute la vague and indefinite a8 to 

wlpther only one of the subdivision o? the 

!$d 

f 0 

unm~~y vote to repeal the ~I@? In-that subTherefore our qwatibh td this: 

"After 8 County; ‘6~ 8 wkzuh, has voted 

’ in favor of prohibiting @took from running sf large under the term8 of Artiale 6954, oan one aubditir~on of the 

County hold an eleatlon to repeal the 

law in that subdivision under the terms 

of Artiale 6963.’ 

The stock law reiative to pPohibZtfng horses, 

mules, jaoka, jennets and oattle fran running at lame 

in oertaiu aountlea was paaaed originally a8 House Bill 

595, Rota 26th Leg., R.S., 1899, Gh.128, p.220, and inoluded both Artiales 6954 and 6963, Vernonfa Civfl Statutee. However there was no provision in the orfginal 
. . 

Hon. YatmS If. Bloore, page 2 (v-%1) 

Act whereby the stock law might be repealed in a aubdlvision of’ a county once It had been adopted in the entire 

0 ountg a 

Once the stock law has been adopted in a oounty pursuant to Artlole 6954, supra, there was no authority to hold an election to repeal the law in any aubdivision of such county until 1903 when the original Act 

was amended by Senate Bill 8, Acts 28th Leg., R.S., 1903, 

Ch.71, p.97, so as to provide for such an eleation. This 

provlslon la found in Artiale 6963, V.C.S., wZllch protides : 

“Upon the written petition of two hundred 

freeholders of any of the above named counties, 

or upon the written petition of fifty freeholdera of any subdivision of the above named oounties, if the law be In force in that aubdlvlalon 

only, the commissioners court shall be authorlzed and required to order an eleotion on the date 

therein named to determine whether or not said 

law be repealed; provided, suoh petition be elgned by at least twenty-four l’meholdera from eaah 

justioe prealnot in suoh oounty. $ut If this 

Iaw beaomes omrative over any of the above named oounties, as Pmsorlbed. it can in no ease ba 

repealed bs any sUbdlVlsion, exaeRt bs a twobirds laajorlty of the votes cast by the freeholders of auoh aountles,. at an eleatLon held In 

acoordanoe wlth the 

(Emphasis added) 

protis~ons oi this ahepter.” 

Slnae the County of Angelina has adopted the 

8tOOk law under the provisions of Artiole 6954, It Is our 

opinion that the only way it may be repealed in a subdlvision of suoh oounty is by holding an eleotion In ooinplianoe with Article 6963. ‘That Artiale provldea that 

in no oaae oan it be repealed in any subdivision exoept 

by a two-thirds majority of the votea caet by the Sreeholders o? the oounty . Therefore it ia our opinion that 

under the i’aota presented an eleation may not be held by 

a subdlvlslon of the couqty to repeal the stook law in 

said aubdlvision of the oounty. 

SubfKARY 

After a oounty as a whole haa adopted 

the stock law under Article 699, Vernon18 
Hon. James R. Moom, page 3 (V-961) 

Civil Statutes, an election iuay not ba oalled in a subdivision alone to repeal the law 

in that subdivision. Art.6963, V. C. 3. 

Pours very truly, 

ATTORREY GRNRBAL OF TRXf@ 

BA:bh:mw By kk& 

Assistant 

APPROVED 

d+ 

?.U 

FIRST ASSISTART 

ATTOFUQRYGRNRRAL