Hon. SamW. 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 

## 60feet 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 

## 60feet 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. gamW. 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 mapor plat of. any c*,. auoh rubdiplsion. TMi’bond shall be in euoh amoimt a6 maybe. 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. SamW. 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 mapor plat provides 

### for AoC~.~l&ta&.lrllll the

_ minimumright-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 

### foraea-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 toye 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’

.” Ik’.<. The emergency clause

.. ::

.

Thus

this 11 ‘

. that ~maintalnlng tihoody roada ind
‘streets In n&wrubdi.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;Yneoeasary impllcatlon every other ~powernecessary 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 maybring 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 t oomm.tseionerel courts are au 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

. ,.’

. . ‘~

: .,

.