- 

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~seed you 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 how thb proceeds of these bonds 

vould be used. The committee then made rpeclfic 

recommendations aa to vhat made bend phoney should 

be spent on and further advooatsd th+t $250,OOO.O(I 
Honorable 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 no more 

than $12,000.00 per annum be issued for such maintenance 

purposea. The Commissioners Court passed an order 

on May 28, 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 OoUrt bound by the order paseed by a previous Court on Hay 28, 1929, or 

wag .thla order merely a declaration of polfcp 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 annum for maintenance purpose&t” 

We will 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 ha8 been 

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 money ia 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 P f Murray V. Willfamaon, 32 8. W, (26) 

817 !a;: 

The Commlssionera’ Court of Hopklne County entered an order on Hag 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. The pertinent part of the, reelection order entered by the Commissioners’ Court on May 2 Es , 

1929, provide8 as followst 

“We further find and recommend that the $250,000.00 

set aside for maintenance only be prorated to the four 

cmlssioners~ precincts, equally, and be leaued and 

used in amounta not 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 en May 28, 1929, was before the Texarkana Court 

of Civil Appalls in the case ,of Murray v, Williamson, su ra. 

The Court of ClvIl Appeals held in said opinion on page 8 60 

aa f ollova 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. By the 

order 80 made, considered in Itp, entire@ and 

fairly construed, It VQB contemplated and Intended 

that in no event should any of the 10651 county 

roads named be abandoned, nor In any vise nor ln any 

event ehould the allocation of the ~utn to 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 or aided out of the proceeds of the bonde, 

and aa setting aside for use such amount aa 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 and notvlthstanding the route of such state highway In 

final deslgnatio~ vae laid to run,. not along, but 

away from, 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 80 absolutely 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 from the bonds and allocated, to the local roads mentioned in the aonstruotlon 

of such local roads ; . .” 

In view of the holding In or14 oplnlen and Q&e other 

ruthoritiea herein quoted, we are of- the opinion that the bmmit~- 

sioners’ Court of Hopkina County lm bound by the ordel. of May 28, 

1929, and that aaid Commissioners’ Court cannot Is8ue mere thPn 
- 

Honorable Newell Oambron,. .$age 4 

Twelve Thousand Doliars ($12,000.00) in bon& per iumum for malntemnca purposeer 

We trust that this eufficlentl~ armwere pour queat?.ene.