-

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **11**

Honorable l?ewell Cambron County Auditor Bopklna County Sulphur Springe, Texas


### DA Sirs Opinion lo. 

### o-6755

“Bnol~seedyou vi11 f extracts from the‘minutes of Hopkins County.

ounty and the time of additional 00.00 (making an ***for** the **further**

**to &!a~** 

### 16, 1929, a citizens mmthe issuance of these bonds realized ttla chance of the approvnl of then& ng election unless the citizens had nce aa to howthb proceeds of these bonds vould be used. The committee then maderpeclfic recommendations aa to vhat made bend phoneyshould be spent on and further advooatsd th+t $250,OOO.O(IHonorable Newell Cambron, page 2

of the $1,083,500.00 be set aside and issued from time to time for the purpooe of maintaining the roada constructed by bond proceeds and that nomore than $12,000.00 per annumbe issued for such maintenance purposea. TheCommissioners Court passed an order on May28, 1929, committing itself to use the prooesde of any bonds approved at the approaching eleotion in substantial nccordanoe with tho rsccmmendatlone of the citizens, committee,

“The aitizens of the County a roved the isauonce of the bonds and to date $~,~~!,ooo.oo of the $1,750,000.00 total has been issued. %I would like for you to ansuer this questiont Is ths present Gomissioners OoUrtbound by the order paseed by **a** previous Court onHay28, 1929, 

### or wag.thla order merely 

### a declaration 

### ofpolfcp subject to amendment, modification, or change by later Cornmissioners Courte? Xr short, can the Commissionera Court .of Hopkins County issue more than $12,000,00 worth of bonds peg annumfor maintenance purpose&t” Wewill not*quote from the County Commissionera* 

### order entered May

### 28, 1929, elnce aald order l.s aopied at length In Murray v. Williamson, 32 9. W, (2d) 863, p.864. It ha8been repeatedly held by the appellate aourts of this State that where **a** county Mmmlsslonaret court entbrs a pro-eleotlon l rder deslgnatlng the road8 and spaaifiaally declaring the purposes for which the bond moneyia to be exqendcd, aald oommissioners * court or subeequent &mnnllssioncrs courts cannot change the designation of such roada or expend the monsy for ana other purpose than that specifically designated in the prsslectlon order. Black v. Strength, 

### 246 3. W. 79; Qulsenberr Mitchell, 2 2 9. **W.** 

### 160~ Fletcher v. Ely, 

### 53 **S. W.**  ,ror refused fMurray**V.** Willfamaon, 32 8. W, (26)

**P** 

### 817 **!a;: The**  Commlssionera’ Court of Hopklne County entered an order onHag

### 16, 1929, ordering an election to be held throughout ths County an Jul to 1 

### 5, 1929, relative to authorieing the Commisaionerst Court asue the bonds In question. Thepertinent part of the, reelection order entered by the Commissioners’ Court onMay2 Es
, 1929, provide8 as followst

“Wefurther find and recommendthat the $250,000.00 set aside for maintenance only be prorated to the four cmlssioners~ precincts, equally, andbe leaued and used in amountanot exceeding $12,000.00 per year, which vould be $3,000.00 per year for each precinct.”h

Ronoreble Bowel1 Cambron, page 

### 3

The order entered by the Commiealonere’ Court of Hopkins County enMay

### 28, 1929, wasbefore the Texarkana Court of Civil Appalls in the case ,of Murrayv, Williamson, su ra. TheCourt of ClvIl Appeals held in said opinion onpage 8

### 60 aa follova t

“The writer expreaaing’ his opinion further thinks that the order of the commissioners8 court 

### of May

### 28, 1929, should be regarded, aa the trial court did, as in effect a pre-election order. Black v. Strength, 112 Tex. 

### 188, **246** S. W. 79. Bythe order 80made, considered in Itp, entire@ and fairly construed, It VQBcontemplated and Intended that in no event should any of the 10651 county roads namedbe abandoned, nor In anyvise nor ln any event ehould the allocation of the ~utnto be expended on such roads out of the proceed8 of the bonds be otherviae used or diverted. **In** this vIev, the horder of the commissioners court should be lntsrpretcd ae abeolutely eatabliehlng and deelgnating the loaal road involved in the preeent suit as leading from Sulphur Springs near Martin SprLngs via Reily Sprlnga to c’ounty line as a road to be aonnstruated 

### oraided out of the proceeds of the bonde, and aa setting aside for use such amountaa might **be** needed for the c~onatruction of the full length of the road, and Including a connection with the state highway running north and south, although andnotvlthstanding the route of such state highway In final deslgnatio~ vae laid to run,. not along, but awayfrom, such road. Likewise the Bhooks Chapel and **Cross** Roads road involved In the suit was to be construoted or aided out of the prooeeda of the bonds. 

### ,."Therefore

the plaint~ff~‘vould be entitled te 1 haie the routes 80absolutely fIxed by the order enforced to the full ext6nt of the order, in the event the commlssioners~court refused or failed to expend or we the proceeds derived fromthe bonds and allocated, to the local roads mentioned in the aonstruotlon 

### ofsuch local roads ;
. .” In view of the holding In or14 oplnlen and Q&eother ruthoritiea herein quoted, we

### areof- the opinion that the 

### bmmit~- sioners’ Court of Hopkina County lmbound by the ordel. 

### ofMay

### 28, 1929, and that aaid Commissioners’ Court cannot Is8ue 

### merethPn-

Honorable Newell Oambron,..$age 4

Twelve ThousandDoliars ($12,000.00) in bon& per iumumfor malntemnca purposeer

**We** trust that this eufficlentl~ armwerepour queat?.ene.