Hon. Ramle H. Qrlffln Opinion Ho. V-1401 

Crlm. Dlst.,+,Attorney 

Jefferson County Re: Legality of the County 

Beaumont, Texas Clerk recording the plat 

of a subdivision within 

five miles of an Incorporated city vhen it has 

been approved by the City 

Planning Commission but 

not by the Commissioners 

Dear Sir: court. 

You have requested an opinion on the followlng question: 

m 

. . * whether or not It Is necessary 

for the Commissioner's Court to approve 

the plat of a subalvl8lon located within 

five miles of an incorporated city when the 

plat has been approved by the appropriate 

city authorities.' 

The original act relating to the platting 

and recording of sub6lvlslons wa8 passed In 1927, and 

became Article 974a, V.C.S. Thla act purported to 

give cities of 25,000 inhabitants or more authority 

over the filing of plats of subdivisions within five 

mllee of the city limltcr and authorized cities of 

leas than 25,000 inhabitants to adopt its provlslone. 

City of Corpua Chriati v. Ooueer, 236 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. 

clv. App. 1951 error ref.). The act required that 

such plats be ipprovea by the City Planning Coatmls8lOn 

or by the governing body of the city if it had no Planning Conrmlsslon. 

In 1931, Article 6626, V.C.S., ua8 amended 

80 a8 to provider 

"The following Instruments of vrltlng 

vhlch shall have been actiovleaccl or proved 

according to law, are authorized to bo recorded, viz.: all deeaa, mortgages, conveyances, aeeclo of trust, bonan for title, 
Hon. RamIe H. Griffin, page 2 (V-1401) 

covenants, defeaaancea or other instruments 

of writing concerning any lands or tenements, 

or g00a3 and chattels, or movable property 

of any description; provIdea, however, that 

In cases of aubdlvlalon or rye-subdivision of 

real property no map or plat of any such aubdivision or re-subdivision shall be filed or 

recorded unless and until the same ha3 been 

authorized by the Commissioners Court of the 

county in which the real estate la situated 

by order- duly entered In the minutes of said 

Court, except In cases of partition or other 

subdivision through a Court of record; provided. that within incorporated cities and 

towns the governing body thereof in lieu of 

the CoIlrmissIonera' Court shall perform the 

duties hereinabove Imposed upon the CommIaslonera' Court." (Ernphaaia added.) 

In construing the above provisions, the Supreme 

Court stated In Trawalter v.,Schaefer, 142 Tex. 521, 

I 

179 S.W.2d 765 (1944): 

5 

* 

. . . It la plainly evident that the 

exception to Article 6626, Acts 1931, regarding mapa.or plats of land situated within the 

corpdrate limits of cities and towns operates 

to keep In force the provisions of Article 974a, 

Acts 1927, in so far as such last-mentioned 

Act covers maps or plats of land situated wlthIn the corporate limits of the cities and towns 

mentioned therein, but it does not operate to 

preserve or keep In force such Act In so far 

as it covers extraterritorial lands. Certainly 

had the Legislature Intended such a conatructlon to be given Article 6626, Acts 1931, It 

would have Included lands within five miles of 

cltles and towns of 25,000 Inhabitants or more 

in the language of the exception. 

"Even If it should be held that Article 

6626, Acts 1931, has not repealed the extraterritorial provisions of Article 974a, Acts 

1927, then maps or plats of lands located 

within five miles of cities and towns contalnlng 25,000 inhabitants or more would be lncluaed within the provisions of both Acts, and In 

such Instances both Acts would have to be complied with. We hardly think that such was the 
Hon. RamIe H. Griffin, page 3 (V-1401) 

Intention of the Legislature; and yet this conclusion would be Inescapable if It should be 

held that Article <6626, Acts 1931, has not repealed the extraterritorial provision of Artlcle'974a, Acts 1927. . . ." 179 S.W.2d at 

768. 

In 1949, Article 974a was amended by K.B. 158, 

Acts 51at Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 154, p. 321. In conatrulng this amendment the court stated in City of Corpus 

Christ1 v. Gouger, aupra: 

-*The 1949 Act does not expressly state 

that It Is an amendment to the 1931 Acts, and 

It does not purport to do anything further than 

to amend Section 1 of Article 974a by making 

more detailed requirements as to maps or plats 

of land lying within Incorporated cities or 

within five mllea distance therefrom, and repeal Section 10 In Its entirety. Said Act does 

not restore to the City Planning Commission or 

the City Governing Body the powers theretofore 

vested in said bodies prior to the 1931 amendment of Article 6626. 

"We are unable to agree with appellant's 

contention that the amendment of Section 1 and 

the repeal of Section 10 of Article 974a $mplledlg repealed the provisions of the 1931 

amendment to~Artlcle 6626, which the Supreme 

Court, in Trawalter v. Schaefer, 142 Tex. 521, 

179 S.W.2d 765, held deprived cities of the 

authority to prevent plats of aubdlvlalona outside the city limits from being filed or recorded. Repeals by implication are not favored and 

If the Legislature desires to reinvest the 

cities of the State'wlth authority over maps 

and plata of subdivided lands lying outside 

the munlclpal llmlta, it must employ language 

Indicating a clear intention to modify the 

provisions of Article 6626 as the same have 

been construed by the Supreme Court." 236 S.W.2d 

at 871. 

House Bill fi6;Z. Acts 52nd Leg.. R.S. 1951. ch. 

403, p. '745, amended Article':6626 so that lt now provides: 

, VI 2 
.I: 23 

Hon. 

52nd 

Ramie H. Griffin, page 4 (V-1401) 

"The following instruments of writing 

which shall have been acknowledged or proved 

according to law, are authorized to be recorded, viz.: all deeds, mortgages, conveyances, deeds of trust, bonds for title, covenants, defeasances or other instruments of 

writing concerning any lands or tenements, 

or goods and chattels, or moveable property 

of any.deacrIptIon; provided, however, that 

In cases of subdivision or resubdlvlalon 

of realproperty no map or plat of any such 

aubd!.vIalon or re-aubdlvlalon shall be filed 

or recorded unless and until the same has 

been authorized by tlie Commissioners Court 

of the county In which the real estate la 

situated by order duly entered In the minutes 

of said Court, except In cases of the partltlon or other subdivision through a court e 

of record; provided that where the real eatate is situated within the corporate limits 

or wlthi fi il f the corporate limits 

of any i~cor$~teedsc~ty or town, the governing body thereof or the city planning commlaalon, as the case may b , 

cle 974a. Vernon's Texa: C&l S t t , shall 

pro;;d;d,F Artlperform the duties hereinabove Imposed upon 

the Commissioners Court." 

The emergency clause of House Bill 661 of the 

Legislature states: 

'The fact that the decision of the Supreme Court In the case of Trawalter, County 

Clerk vs. Shaefer, 179 S.W.2d 765, has raised 

a question whether the~governlng bodies or 

planning commlaalons within the corporate 

limits or within five (5) miles of the corporate limits of such cities still have the 

powers conferred upon them by said Article 

974a, Vernon's Texts Civil Statutes, creates 

an emergency . . . 

In view of the leglalatlve and judicial 

history of Articles 974a and 6626, V.C.S., It la our 

opinion that'maps or plats of land v1thI.n the corporate 

llmlta or within five miles of the corporate limits of 

an incorporated city or town must be approved only by 

the governing body of such city or town or the city 
. . 

Hon. Ramle H. Griffin, page 5 (v-1431) 

planning commla3Ion. These plats do not need the approval of the commissioners' court of the county In 

which the land Is situated In order to be filed or recorded with the county clerk. 

In view of the fact that Jefferson County 

has a population of 195,083 Inhabitants according to 

the 1950 Federal Census, we must consider one further 

act (Senate Bill 321, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, ch. 

151, p. 2'56, codified as Art. 2372k, V.C.S.) in connectlon with your request. Senate Bill 321, aupra, provides 

for the approval of maps or plats of lands lying outside 

the corporate limits of the city or town by the commIaaloners' court In counties having a population of 190,000 

Inhabitants or more. This act was passed on April 2 , 

1951. House Bill 661 (amending Article 5626, V.C.S. 7 was 

passed on May 31, 1951. Since House Bill 661 13 a later 

enactment of the same Legislature. it will onerate to repeal that portion of Senate Bill 521 to the extent of any 

conflict in their terms. Ex part&MarIa~~de- Jesus de la 0, 

227 s.W.2d 212 (Tex. Crlm.Yi_ )50); Att'y Gen. Op. V-990 

(19501. , _- . Obvloualv Senate Bill 321 and-House Bill 66i are 

In conflict with Respect to the-approval of maps or plats 

of lands by the commissioners' courts prI.or to recording 

In the office of the county clerk. Thus, House Bill 551, 

being the later enactment of the same TLegislature, will 

control over the provisions of Senate Bill 321. Ex parte 

Maria de Jesus de la 0, supra. 

We therefore agree with your conclusion that 

maps or plats of land lying within five miles of the 

. corporate limits of an Incorporated city or town need 

not be approved by the commissioners court as a prerequisite to recording. 

SUMMARY 

Maps or plats of land lying within the 

corporate limits or within five miles of the 

corporate limits of an incorporated city or 

town must be stiproved only by the governing 

body or the city planning commission of such 

city or town, and need not be approved by the 

commI33loner3' court of the county In which 
. . . 8 

Hon. Ramle H. Griffin, page 6 (V-1401) 

the land Is situated, to be filed or recoeded with the county clerk. Article 6626, 

V.C.S., as amended by Rotise Bill 661, Acts 

52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, ch. 403, p. 745. 

Yours' very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

E. Jacobs& 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Beeee 

Assistant 

. 

JR:mh 

.