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 

Au tin, Texaa ,. 

Obar Mr. RIobolronr Opinion lo. 04432 

Rer Constitutionality cg H.B. 

Bo. 553 concernleg cansolldatlon of a town or village of 

:less ehan 5000 population, 

( with a c1t.r having more than 

5OM) population. 

I . 

We beg 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 On Jfunlclpal and &iv&to Co~pom~fiion8 to rend the attached 

bU8e aill #O. ,65> t0 m end XUque8t that an 

op%nlon be given the~COsualt.tee a8 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 2 propose8 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 

aomIng vlthln the applicable p~ovI8lon8 of thI8 

section, purporting to be in compliance with the 

8tatutoPy provi8I0nr aontalned in chapter 15 of 

Title 28 Rev1804 Clvll Statute8 of X925; and any 

notice, drolaPatIon, certlfloate or other act 

requised to be done or purporting to bave been 

done by any nfor, wunollman, ewl88loner, 

aldemn, altr seoretarr or city olerk in ccmplIaii&S Vith the 8tatUtOm Peqti8ItIon8 Of 

-Chapter 15 of Title 28 Revl8ed Clvll Statute8 of 

1925; rhall hT0 th8 88me legal 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. An7 eleotloa hsld prior to the enaotment of 

thI8 sot submitting the que8tlon of con8olldatlon 

to the qualified voter8 of oItIe8 or town8 authorized 

to consolidate by this act, 8ha11 in all thing8 be 

deemed a legal and valid eleotlon a8 if this lav 

had been In exi8tence on ~JMB date of 8uoh election; 

provided the requirement8 of lav applicable to 

aon8olIdatIon of oItie8 and tovns have otherwI8e 

been ooapllrd vIth.' 

.,, Section 16 of Article I of the State Constitution - 

the Bill of Right8 - I8 a8 follovsr 

%o bill of attainder, ox po8t facto &v, 

retronotlve lav, or any lar lmpairlp the obll- 

@AtiOn Of OOiItPaOt, 8ball be made. 

We note tbat the bill, a8 above quoted, u8e8 the VOPd 

"retrospeotlv8" rather than the vord "retroaotive::. but this 

c.an make nc difference 8ince the tvo vordr a8 ured In OQnt 

8tItUtlon8 are held t0 be SnOlymoU8. Ralrden v. Rolden, 

15 Ohio St. 20 

P1ea8oIl (H. D. 1 

; O~ar T. Toledo (Ohio) 89 1. B. 12; State v. 

218 If. Y. 154; A8hley V. BPOm (1. c.) 151 

9. B. 725; WIlSOn V. HOV ksxico L. dc T. Co. (a. no) 81 Pac. 

gg $5; C;~~inental 011 co. V, Hontana Concrete Co. (Mont.) 

. . 

, 
Honorable C. E. Nicholson page 3 

The vorda 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 8Ueh a legal effeot different frown vhat 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; Duok v. Black Diamond cOliOPiO8 (Tan.) 33 

3. U. (2) 6. f Amerloan Surety Co, v. Axtell Con any 

36 8. N. (2 3 715; Bowing v. Delaware Rayon Co. P 

(Tex.) 

Del.) 188 

Atl. 769; Ducey V. Patterson (Cola.) 86 Pac. 109; ffray v. 

CItx of Toledo (Ohio) 89 If, B. 12; Westerman v. 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 any j%erson 1s not retroactive or retrospective, a8 thore tePm8 are 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.) 67 Law Ed. 332; Clearvater Township v. 

Board 

or P. t 

Mlch.) 153 H. U. 8248 Westerrnan v. Su reme Lodge K. 

554 l 

MO.) 94 3. W. 4701 Oladney v. Sydnor P MO.) 72 3. W. 

The ObVioU8 rea8on for the distinction ve have here 

noticed 18 that 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 pPOVl8IoZI iorblddlng 8UCh 

an act; whereas there 18 almost universal conrtltutlonal 

prohibition against retroactive or retrospective lava 

oreating rights, duties or obligations which did not 

exist be?oPe. It 18 the latter situation that such con8titUtiOlld provisions pPe8crlbe. 

-’ This view la but another way o? giving effect to 

curative acts of the Legislatum. 

Corpus JuPls Secundum thus states the general rule: 
Honorable C. E. f?lcholson page 4 

"In genenl, vhere there 18 no 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 may Patl?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 OXpcS88iOll8 Of thI8 rti0 

are to the erfect that the L8glxlatur8 may validate 

retroepectlvely any proaeedln# 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. 875-6 1 422. 

We are ln sccord vlth your suggestion that the title 

to H. 3, Ro, 553 should be changed to read in substance as 

fOiiOV8 t 

“AH ACT to axkend Chapter 15, Title 28 of the 

Revised Civil Statute8 of Texas, 1925." 

and 80 on a8 you have it ¶..!I the title. 

This, ve belleoe, ansvers JOUP Inquiry. 

Your8 very truly 

ATTORERY QEHHRAL OF 

,, 

BY Oale &i peer 

A8818 t.Ult