Hon. Sam W. Davis 

District Attorney 

Harrle County 

Houston, Texas 

Dear. Sir: 

Opinion NO. v-1480 

Re: Authority of the commlsaloners a court to prevent 

the sale of lots fronting 

on a street leea than 

sixty feet wide in a subdivision which has not 

been pl,atted Andy recorded. 

You have requested an opinion on the follow; 

lng qu&tlon. 

“The Harris County Commlealoners I, Court 

hae requested this office to obtain your 

oplnlon’on the following problem: 

“A .land developer 18 selling lots fiute’id,d of the corporate limits of cities or 

towne7,by metes and bounds deacrlptions in a 

geneii;al scheme or subdivision which has not 

been platted and recorded as preecrlbed by 

law; the roada or &r&eta on which the lots 

front are leas. than 60 feet In width. 

“Does the county commlasloner8” court 

have authority to prevent the. eale of lots 

by metes and bounds deacrlpt~ioti, fronting 

on a street least than 60 feet wide, zontrary to S.B..321, 52nd Legislature? If’ 

8o;what procedure Is available to the Cornmissioner8 ~court to prevent such sales, 

If any? II 

Senate Bill 321, A&e 52nd Leg., R. S., 1951, 

ch. 151~: p. 256 (Art. ~2372k, v;c.s.) provides: 

“Section, 1. (a) In all counties having 

a population of not lees than one hun&.ed 

ninety thoueand (190,000) acdordlng to the 

last preceding or any future FederalCensus, 

the.X!ommlsai’oners Court8 of such counties 

shall~ have the authority to require the 
_- - 

Hon. gam W. Davie, page i (v-1480) 

. 

. 

. 

“(b) The Coinmisaioners Courts of,any 

such counties shall have the authority to 

tpromulgate reasonable speclflcatlons~to be 

fOliOWed in the c’onatruction.of any such 

road8 or streets. within such aubdivlalons, 

whlah epeolfl.oatlons-may include provieions 

for the oonatruotion of adequakdrainage 

for suoh roads or atmeets. 

“Sei . :2. ‘The Comnilakoner~ Colirte oi 

any euoh oountlee~‘.ahall .have the authority 

m-ute l Suoh bOntj shall be made payable to, 

the %olxnty JUdge, or-his mccemors. In offloe, of the oountg uhereinsuch mabdivirrlon 

llefi, at&oond%tloaied that the owner or 

T,, Orman of’ uny rueh traot of land to be sub-. 

d1Oid.d will oon&mot w rohde. or streete. 

~%thln euoh eubdlvislon in ao.ooMance wlth 

,thr rpeolfloutloh# pFomulgeted br the Corn- 

~mirsionera 00&t of any map or plat of. any c *,. 

auoh rubdiplsion. TMi’bond shall be in euoh 

amoimt a6 may be. detsmnlned by the aomiaaionem Court .but,ehall not exoesd a mm 

.equal to Thred (43.00)~ Dol&& for eaoh 

lineal foot oi road or etreet witI$n suoh 

eubdlvlblon. ~. 
Hon. Sam W. Davis, page 3 (v-1480) 

“Sec. 3. The Commissioners Courts of 

any such counties shall have the authority 

to’refuae to approve and authorize any map 

or plat of any-&h subdivision unlesi such 

map or plat provides for AoC~.~l&ta&.lrllll the _ 

minimum right-of-way for roads or streets 

as reaulred In Section l(a) hkreof; and 

there is Bubmltted with such map or Nat a 

bond as required by Section 2 hkeof;” 

In Gulf View Courts v. Galveston County 150 

S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Clv. App. 1941, error ref.), the’court 

granted @lveston County a mandatory InjunctIon requiring the Gulf View Courts to remove certain buildings 

from an easement for aea-wall purposes whioh the county 

had, PreVipualy,. .obtalned. 

It, ls ‘well settled tha.t a county will be entitled to in.lunctive ~relief for the nurDoae of lceeDlnn 

eaaements for road purposea unobstrudteh 

215 s w 26 387 (Tex’ CiYiF - 

&‘241 S.W.2d $44 (iexr)Pdiv. 

Senate Bill 321 grants to the County an 

easement. of sixty feet for roads or.etreets Intended 

for public use. It speclflcally provides .that the cornmlssion$rs.t courts 

‘of a subdlvlsion to 

ye authoplzed to require the owner 

less than’ sixty feet. 

Rrovide fbr ,a right-of-way of not 

Further,,the commissioners8 

court may ‘promulgate reasonable specifications for the 

construction. of euoh .roads. 

stat&)a :? . I’.” I k’.<. 

The emergency clause 

. . :: 

. 

Thus 

this 

11 ‘. that ~maintalnlng tihoody roada ind 

‘streets In n&w rubdi.vlslons’has become a heavy 

Wain on county Road and Bridge Funds,,and .the 

fact that at present. .the County. Commlss$onere, 

Courts have no’ legal authority to ‘require real 

estate developers to oanstruot~substantlal roads 

and. atreete in auoh new rubdlvialon, creates an 

emergeno,+. . . ” 

It is. proper ,for the Oommilasloners’ scout to protect 

property interest by resort to the courts ~for any 

~’ lnjunotlon agaln8t.interfe;renoe.wlth its use. 

The grant of an express power bg the.ieglslature gives. with It .b;Y neoeasary impllcatlon every other 

~power necessary and,proper to the execution. of.the power 
. 

Hon. Sam .W. Davis, page 4 (v-1480) 

expreeely 

r 

anted. Terre11 v. Sparks, 104 Tex. 191, 135. 

S. W. 519, 1911); Moon v. Allred, m S.W. 787 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. 1925, error &am.). Therefore, it is our opinion 

t,hat the oommlsaloners~ oourt may.bring an Injunction 

prooeedlng to enforce the provisions of’Senate Bill 321. 

The oom@ssioners~ courts ~of oountles 

having a population of 190,000 or more inhabitants may bring an Injunction proceeding ,to~ enforoe the provlalons of Senate. Bill 

321;~ Acts g2nd Leg., R.S. 1951, oh.,l51, p* 

256 (Art. 2372k. V.C.S.,), .pr vldlng that the 

oomm.tseionerel courts are au t horlsed to require that owners of aubdlvlslona situated 

outeide the.bounds of any Incorporated town 

or olty provide for rights-of-way of not 

less than sixty feet for any roads or streets 

within their subdivision. I 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: PRICE ,IuLNm 

J. C. Davis, Jr. .’ 

Attorney tinbra 

County Affairs ~Divislon 

E. Jaoobson. .‘l 

RevlowIng Aaslatant-' John Reeves 

Charles D. M&hewn 

.First Assistant 

JR:am 

. ,.’ 

. . ‘~ 

: 

., 

.