TlXmA-rroxz~~~ GEMCRAL 

OF T-EXAS 

April 20, 1964 . 

Honorable Doug Crouch Opinion No. C-246 

Criminal District Attorney 

Tarrant County Courthouse Re: Questions relating to 

Fort Worth, Texas responsibility for and 

authority over indigent 

Dear Mr. Cr.nIch: aged county residents. 

You have requested an opinion from this office upon 

the following questiona: 

"1. Who Is charged with the reaponalblllty 

of providing for the Indigent aged of Tarrant 

County? 

"2. Uho Is responsible lor the supervision 

of the Tarrant County Home for Aged, a county 

owned and operated residential institution for 

aged and convalescent persons. 

“3. Can the Commissioners Court and/or 

Juvenile Board of Tarrant County lease to any 

private lndlvldual or corporation, county owned 

property for the purpose of that individual or 

corporation upon which-to build a convalescent 

home for the aged? 

“4. Can the Commlssloners Court and/or 

Juvenile Board of Tarrant County contract with 

any lndlvldual or corporation for a period of 

time in excess of two years for the care of 

the Indigent aged? 

“5 . Can the Commlssloners Court and/or 

Juvenile Board of Tarrant County contract with 

an indl,vldual or corporation for the care of 

incigent aged and guarantee in that contract 

to pay for a greater number oi people than 

-?.ose actually being caped for by the lndlvidual 
Bon. Doug Crouch, page 2 (C-246 ) 

or corporation (Eg. A Slat guarantee of 100 

residents per month with only 75 persons actually receiving care.) 

“6. Can the Commissioners Court and/or 

Juvenile Board of Tarrant County contract 

wlth any individual or corporation to care 

for the indigent aged In a private Sacllltg 

at an agxeed rate pep patient or resident 

secelvlng care. 

“7. Can the county agency or department 

assigned the ~~~sponalblllty for the care of 

the lndlgent aged arrange without a kitten7 

contract for the care and realdence FS thosF 

Indigent aged wards In existing convalescent 

homes9 boarding hornear or hospitals. 

was Lbee the Commlasloners Court or the 

JuveHle Bc~srd make the determination as to 

whethen o,n not the county should continue to 

care for indfgent aged persons In a county 

home Q? whether such persons should be place{ 

with pHvste fnetltutlona at county expense? 

Your first and second qpestlons can be answered 

togetker a Under the provisions of SCctlon 11, Article 2351, 

Vernon15 Civil statutes, the Commlsslonera' Court has t~he duty 

tc: 

%l Provide for the support of paupe-s 

and such'ldiots ,and luratlcs as cannot be admftted into the lunatic asylum, residents OS. 

their county, yho are unable to support themeelvea. . e .a 

UhSle It Is true that the Commlssloners~ Court Is a 

court CC lfmited @rlsdlctlon, ft is also true that where a 

duty is imposed or a power con.Semed by statute upon a commlssloners court rithln the boundaries of power which the Constltution has created, then the.comaiaeloners court has implied 

authority to exerolae broad discretion to accomplish purposes 

intended by such statute. El Paso County v. Elan 

93 (Ter.Clv.App. 1937'); h&on v. Wapshall 118 k 

.;O~dSg~i2d 

199 error dism.); Anderson 4. Wood, i37 Tex. 

2019 152 SaW02d 1064 (1941). 

2cier the provfafona of Sectfon li, Article 23519 

'Z xt-y to ::rovia" for tbe support of paupers, rhfch includes 

"2 :"zq5,?." f%+$.Eds is tiposed upcn ?~hs Conmssimers Cciirt. 
i 

hon. Doug Crouch, page 3 (C-246 ) 

The inawer to the second question also Is that the Commlssloners 

CGurc,, rather than the Juvenile Board, la responsible for the 

supervision of the Tarrant County Home for the Aged. 

+C,tentlcn 

In peg&-d to your third question, you directed our 

to Section 19(d), Article 2351, Vernon's Clvll Statutes, which IS as follows: 

"19(d). Countlea are expressly authorized 

and empowered to lease or rent any lands, housing, 

c,r faclIltles acquired by them pursuant to this 

Act acd to establish and revise the rent or 

charges therefor. a . .v 

IS the particular property was acquired pursuant to 

Section 19(a), Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes, then we 

answer your question In the afflrmatlve. 

In connection with your fourth question, certain 

provlslona ln Section 7 of Article XI of the Constitution or 

Texas, provldes that: 

D .no debt for any purpose shall ever 

be incurred In any mEMler by any city or county 

unless provlslon 1s made, at the time of creating 

the same9 for levylng and collecting a sufficient 

tax to pay the interest thereon and provide at 

least two pep cent (2%) a8 a elnklng fund. Q e ,.' 

The term "debt" as used ln the above quGted conetltutlonal pr$vlslon has been unlrormly held by the courts of 

this State to mean any pecuniary obligation imposed by contr8ct3 except euch as were , at the date of the contract, within 

the lawful and reasor&ble contemplation of the parties, to be 

satfsfled oJt of the current revenues for the year or out of 

some fund then within the lmmedlate control of 

County v. fIacley, 1 

Stevenson v. Blake.$3Geex. 103, 113 S.W.2d 

54, 150 S.W.2d 980 

“CLAera 5 1 0 plrrl;Pl No. v+5z (1952). 

In Stevenson v. Blake, 88 S.W.2d 773 (Tes.Clv.App. 

1935), arflrmsd ln Stevenson v. Blake, 131 Tex. 103, 113 S.W.2d 

525 (I938), the commissioners court had contracted with certain 

attorneys whereby the attorneys were to be pald in Installments 

over Y p3+~d in exe58 of a year. The Cou?t, Cn holding the 

tzon7rsrt ixaiid a3 be1r.g in contravention 0r Sect.lon 7 of 

2,-.::::* :<I cr the state Constitutions stated that2 
Bon. Doug Crouch, page 4 (C- 246 ) 

9, 

a . .the validity of such contract is 

determinable by the good-Saith Intention of 

the parties, at the time of contracting, as 

to whether the county’s obligation Is, upon 

the one,hand, to be paid out of unappropriated 

revenues then In hand or to be collected during 

the year of the contract and lawfully available 

for the purpose, or, upon the other hand, out 

of revenues to be colleated after the termlnatlon of that fiscal year. In the first case, 

the contract does not contravene the constltutlonal limltatlo?lj in the second It does.” 

The p-reposed contract unless payable gut of current 

revenues for the current year would be invalid unless the 

constitutional .requlrements Sound In Section 7, Article XI 0r 

the Constitution, has first been complied with. 

Your fifth question concerns a contractual agreement 

by Tarrant County to pay for a guaranteed minimum number of 

people, which may be more thazz those actually receiving care. 

By Section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution of 

Texas, a county Is enjoined from becoming a subscriber to the 

capital OS any private corporation or assoclatlon or making 

my approgrlatlcn or donation or loanlrg Its credit to same. 

Thus, the commissioners courts may not dispose of county property 

so as to amount virtually to a dopatlon. Llano County v. Knowlesi 

29 S.W. 549 (Tex.Clv.App. 1895). Although a minimum guarantee 

by Tarrant County would undoubtedly be a desirable conQractual 

feature In the eyes of the other contracting party, we are of 

the op3.nlon that the Sunds paid for those Individuals not actually 

receiving care would amount to a donation by Tsrrant County. As 

such, It wou,uld violate Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution 

0s Texas. We thereS’o,-e answer your fifth question in the negative. 

Somewhat aln~llar to the preceding question, your 

sixth question also concerna the contractual power and authority 

of the Commissioners Cfxrt of Tarrant County. As stated In anP 

awering your SF-& question, where a duty Is imposed or a power 

conferred upon a comleel~nere court, then the commissioners 

court has implied authority to exerclee broad discretion to accomplish the purposes intended. When the commissioners courts 

were expreesly glven the power and duty ‘to provide for the 

support 0s paupers,” by necessary implication they were clothed 

xlth the mthority to do all the Incidental things necessary to 

provide for their suppork. Thus, while the commissioners court 

is not under a duty to place indigents In a prlvate fscllity and 

psy for their care, Wlllacy County v. valley Baptist !ios~ital, 
Hon. Doug Crouch, page 5 (C- 246 ) 

29 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Clv.App. 1930), It can, In the exercise of 

its dlscretlon, provide for the care of Indigents whom it places 

In a private facility. Here, of course, the contractual terms 

must not be such as to amount to a donation by the County to 

the lndlvldual or corporation providing the csre, nor can the 

contract provide for payments by the County out of future revenues. 

Therefore, your sixth question 1s answered in the 

affirmative. 

To answer your seventh question, we must determine 

whether it 1s within the authority of the Commlssloners Court 

to mange, wathout a written contract, for the csre of the 

Indigent aged now In existing convalescent homes or hospitals. 

It has been held that the county 1s liable for the reasonablevalue 

of services received under sn implied contract, or when the 

contract actually made was void, as long as it was within the 

authority of the commissioners court to,,make the contract sought 

to be implied. D.rrls County v. Nevllle, 84 S.W.2d 834 (Tex. 

Civ.App. 19 Yjj 5); Bdrlchz: YIas County, 167 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 

Clv.App. 19'29 error di 

Thus, Is it within the Tarrant County Commissioners 

Court063 authority to arrange for this care without a written 

contract. Ffrst, as noted .ln our answer to your previous clues; 

tlon, when the commlssloners courts were expressly glqn the 

power and duty 'to provide for the support of paupersp by 

necessary implication they were clothed with the authority to do 

all. the incidental things necessary to provide for their support. 

So lo.ng as the indigents are residents of Tarrant COMtY and 

unable to support themselves, the commlssloners court 1s given 

the duty to provide for their support. Whether this provision 

of mpport is agreed.upon by written contract, or whether It is I 

ar2angad wlthcut a written contract, seems to have no bearing 

on t.he question of authority. It Is our oplnlon that It is 

within the authoHty of the Tarrant County Commissioners Court, 

under> Section 11, Article a51s to arrange without a written 

cont~~a~t for the care and residence of those aged Indigents 

now in exlatlng convalescent homes or hospitals. 

In awwep to your last question, the COrnmiSSIOnerS 

Court makes the determination as to whether the county should 

continue to care for indigent aged persons ln a county home or 

whether such persons should be placed with private lnstltutlons 

at county.expense. The court has the implied power to exercise 

its discretion aa to the means to be employed in providing for 

~the cupport of i%s fndlgent aged. Attorney General'- %in:Gn 

2 -2217 ~lg~o~.~ 
Hon. Doug Crouch, page 6 (C- 246 ) 

SUMMARY 

(1) The Tarrant County Commissioners 

Court is responsible for providing for the 

Indigent aged of Tarrant County. Further, 

the Tarrant County Commissioners Court Is 

responsible for the supervision of the Tarrant County Home for Aged. 

(2) The Tarrant County Commissioners 

Court can lease to a private Individual or 

corporations county owned property upon which 

the individual or corporation Is to build a 

convalescent home If the particular property 

was acquired pursuant to Section 19(a), Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

(3) The Commlsslonere Court cannot 

contract with an Individual or corporation for 

longer than a year unless the constitutional 

requi.zements In Section 7, Article XI of the 

Ccastltution are flrst complied with. 

(4) The CommlPrsioners Court cannot 

guarantee In a contract to pay for a greater 

numbes cf persons than those actually being 

cszed for by the Individual or corporation. 

(5) Tke Commlasloners Court can contract 

with m Individual or corporation to care for 

the Indigent aged in a private facility at an 

agreed rate per patient receiving csre. 

3 

(6: The Commissioners Court can errange 

with&t a written contract for the care and 

residence of those Indigent wards In existing 

convalescent homes -CP hospital& 

(7) The Commieaionerrr Court makes the 

determkation as to whether the county should 

cont%nue to care for Indigent aged persons In 

a county home or whether ach persons should 

be placed with private institutions at county 

expense. 
i ’ ~1 

. 

‘. Hon. Doug Crouch, page 7 (C- 246 ) 

ELM:lnkh 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONHl CARR 

Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John Reeves 

Gordon Appleman 

Arthur Sandlln 

Frank Booth 

APPROVEDFOR TEEAT'J!ORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

By: g aE. Lawrence Merrlman 

Assistant