I

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
**GROVER SELLERS**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL** 

HOnorable c. lL licholson, chairrnsn Canittee. on.Nunlclpal and Private Corporations Houee of Reprerentatlve8, 49th Leglulature Autin, Texaa ,. Obar Mr. RIobolronr Opinion lo. 04432 Rer Constitutionality cg H.B. Bo. 553 concernleg cansolldatlon of 

### a town or village of :less ehan5000 population, ( with a c1t.r having more than 5OM)population.
**I**

**.** Webeg to acknowlMge receipt of your request for an opinion by this department upon the above subject matter, **a8** r0ii0v8t

"I aa directed bi the Comlttee OnJfunlclpal and &iv&to Co~pom~fiion8to rend the attached **bU8e** aill #O. ,65>t0 m end XUque8tthat an op%nlon be given the~COsualt.teea8 to the legality, or oonrtitutional%tj, Qi that motion dealing with the ret?OrpeOtiVe Or **l%tPOaCtiVe** provirlon of the bill contained in th8 third paragraph of Section 1, ~beginnlng cq **page** 2. -A>,*m pbslng it vi11 be noted that the bill in $ectim 2propose8 to amend**a** certain article. Undoubtedlrj:i thl8 sh0Ud be chengsd **80** a8 to mend the proper chapter. Your oplnlon ln this oonnectlon will al.ao be appreciated." That portion of Ii. B. Ro. 553 especially pointed out by you a8 probably be- retrospective, 1s as follovs:Honorable C, B. Richol8on page 2
%I8 SOotion I8 hereby declared to be retrospeotlve to the iollovlng extent. All petitions purporting to be 8igned by quellfled vot8r8, and pre8Onted to the goveFnIng body and all ordinances, Pe8OlUtiOn8, nOtIOO8, dOO1aMtIOn8 or &her act8 by the governing body of anr city, tovn or village aomIngvlthln the applicable p~ovI8lon8 of thI8 section, purporting to be in compliance with the 8tatutoPy provi8I0nr aontalned in chapter 15 of Title 

### 28Rev1804 Clvll Statute8 of X925; and any notice, drolaPatIon, certlfloate or other act requised to be done or purporting to bave been done by anynfor, wunollman, ewl88loner, aldemn, altr 

### seoretarr**or** city 

### olerkinccmplIaii&S **Vith** the 8tatUtOm Peqti8ItIon8 Of **-Chapter** 

### 15of Title 

### 28Revl8ed Clvll Statute8 of 1925; rhall hT0 th8 88melegal effeat **a8** it there had then exI8ted a lav authorl8Ing each act to have been done and authori8Ing cities, town8 and villages of 1088 than 5,000 population to con8olldate. An7eleotloa hsld prior to the enaotment of thI8 sot submitting the que8tlon of con8olldatlon to the qualified **voter8** of oItIe8 or town8authorized to consolidate by this act, 8ha11 in all thing8 be deemed a legal and valid eleotlon a8 if this lav hadbeen In exi8tence on ~JMB date of 8uohelection; provided the requirement8 of lav applicable to aon8olIdatIon of oItie8 and tovns have otherwI8e been ooapllrd vIth.'

.,, Section 

### 16of Article I of the State Constitution - the Bill of Right8 - I8 a8follovsr

%o bill of **attainder,** ox po8t facto &v, retronotlve lav, orany lar lmpairlp the obll- @AtiOn OfOOiItPaOt, 8ball be made. Wenote tbat the bill, a8above quoted, u8e8 the VOPd "retrospeotlv8" rather than the vord "retroaotive::. but this c.anmakenc difference 8ince the tvo vordr a8ured In OQnt 8tItUtlon8 

### areheld t0 be SnOlymoU8. Ralrden v. Rolden, 15 OhioSt. 20 P1ea8oIl (H. D.1; O~arT. Toledo (Ohio) 89 1. B. 12; State v.

218If. Y. 

### 154;A8hley V. BPOm(1. c.) 

### 151 9.B.725;WIlSOnV. HOVksxico L. dcT. Co. (a. no) 81 Pac. gg $5; C;~~inental 011 co. **V,** Hontana Concrete Co. (Mont.)

. .

,Honorable C. E. Nicholson page 3
Thevorda retroactive and retrospective lays, within the meaning O? 8fShtUte8 and aOn8titUtiOn8, mean those that in retrospect vould affect prior acts, transaatlons, or rlght8 already acerued giving to 8Ueha legal effeot different frownvhat it had under the lav vhen they occurred. State v. Vhlttlsrey 8hlp 9. Board (Mloh. Uash.) 50 Pso. 1191 Clearwater Tovn153 1. Y. 824; Keith v. Ousdry (Tex.) 114 3. W.392; Duokv. Black Diamond cOliOPiO8 (Tan.) 33 3. U. (2) 6.fAmerloan Surety Co, v. Axtell Conany 36 8. N. (23 715; Bowingv. Delaware Rayon Co. P (Tex.) Del.) 188 Atl. 769; Ducey V. Patterson (Cola.) 86Pac. 109; ffray v. CItx of Toledo (Ohio) 89If, B. 12; 

### Westermanv. Supreme Lodge K. of P. 94 3. W. 470 (Ho.); Oladney v. Sydnor (MO.) 72 3. W. 554%Turbevllle v. Oovdy (Tax.) 272 3. Y. 559.

**CorollarJ t0**  

### What**V8** have jU8t said it ?ollovs that
a lav vhlch doe8 not o$Orate retro8peotlvely to a?fect any vested right of anyj%erson 1s not retroactive or retrospective, a8 thore tePm8are u8ed in constitutional lav. It Is penalsalble, therefore, for a statute to draw

- on or to relate to antecedent faota ln any pertinent and ooncltltutlonal vay lu the process of making lav, which doe8 ,not attempt to disturb exlstlhg vested rights, as above shovn. Cox. v. Hart (U. 3.) 67LawEd. 332; Clearvater Township v. Board 

## orP. tMlch.) 153 H. U. 8248Westerrnanv. SuremeLodge K. 554 l MO.) 94 3. W. 4701 Oladney v. Sydnor P MO.) 72 3. W.

The ObVioU8rea8on 

### forthe distinction ve have here noticed 18that rtatute8 oreating Pight8, obligations or **dUtiO8** aPI8ing entirely pPO8peatlVOlg arfJ not Invalid I3OPely becaucle they are predicated or fonaulated ln part upon prior aotr, conditions, situations and the like, for the rlmple pea8on there i8 no cOn8tItutlonal pPOVl8IoZIiorblddlng 8UCh an act; whereas there 18almost universal conrtltutlonal prohibition against retroactive or retrospective lava oreating rights, duties or obligations which did not exist be?oPe. It 18the latter situation that such con8titUtiOlld provisions pPe8crlbe.

-’ This view la but another wayo? giving effect to curative acts of the Legislatum. Corpus JuPls Secundumthus states the general rule:Honorable C. E. f?lcholson page 

### 4

"In genenl, vhere there 18no oonstltutlonal prohibition, a Isglalature may, by retrospective statute, CUP8

men IPPegUtiPItler, ln prior proceedlngr vhlah do not extend to Platter8 of jurlxdlotlon; **and** o~dlnarlly it mayPatl?y and validate any pa8t act vhlch it could orlglnally have authoriced, prwlded it still ha8 the power to authorize it and its authorization doe8 not 

### lmpalr **--V98ted** rights. bXQXOn OXpcS88iOll8OfthI8 rti0 are 

## to the erfect that the L8glxlatur8 mayvalidate retroepectlvely anyproaeedln# whIoh it might have authorlxed In advance, or may**cure-by** subsequent statute vhat It night have dI8pen8Od vith altogether. 30, 8tatUtO8 Curing defeat.8 in .SCts **dotie,** or authorl8lng or aonrlnslng the exercise of pover8, are valid vhere the Legislature orIgInally had authority to 

### confer the powers or authorlxe the sot." - Vol. 

### 16,p. 

### 875-61 

### 422. Weare ln sccord vlth your suggestion that the title to H. 3, Ro, 

### 553should be changed to read in substance as **fOiiOV8** t


### “AHACTto axkendChapter 

### 15,Title 

### 28of the

Revised Civil Statute8 of Texas, 1925." and 80on a8you have it ¶..!I the title. This, ve belleoe, ansvers JOUPInquiry.
Your8 very truly ATTORERY

QEHHRAL

OF

,, BY &i

Oale peer A8818t.Ult