JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

SupruIn cowl BulldIng 

P. 0. Box 12s4s 

*u*lln.T~ 78711. 2546 

512/47$2m 

Telex 9lom741387 

1eieocplw SlzI47w266 

714Jackm.Sulle 700 

oen*s. TX. 7s2024sos 

2lu742e.944 

10011*xar,sun9700 

Hour1on. lx. 77oQ2~111 

71- 

ao806Broadw4y.sun4312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

mw7476pI) 

008 N. TeMh, S&e B 

l4cAnm. TX. 7sso14tlss 

s12a824547 

Z$OOUrrOplurSUlt4400 

qnAnlonb.TX. 78205.2707 

s12J22m101 

All qwlopplunlty/ 

Afflnnellw Acllon Empbyet 

The Attorney General of Texas 

hguet 31. 1984 

Honorable Grant Joam 

ChairMU 

Plnatxc Comittee 

Texao State Senate 

P. 0. Box 12068. Capitol Station 

Austlu. Texan 78711 

Opinion No.JH-200 

Be: Whether a county may uac 

county l quipmant and machinery 

to uaiotain roads In rural 

subdivirriooa 

Dear Senator Jones: 

You ark whether the Burnet County comiealonera court ray uac 

county l qulp8ent and machinery to uriatalu roads lo rural 

subdlvlaioaa. Parriculrrly. you aak the followlnS queatlons: 

1. Utlst action 1s necessary to authorize a 

county to maintain a roadway in a rural subdlvislonl’ 

2. III the fIllaS of a mbdivielon pkt vhlch 

purport6 to ‘hereby dedicate the roeda. etreete. 

peeeagewl~re, end l ll alleye ohown thereoa to the 

uri of .tlw public forever’ sufficient to authorize 

county rdntesuuce of tho8e roadways? 

You inform UI that an lajunctloa was grented in 1971 prohibiting 

the comlseloaera court of Bumet Comzty from udag county equlpmeut 

and uchiaery to n &~taln private roada. Baaed 011 this injunction. 

Burnet.COMty kar ccfumcd :to ulntaln roada ia rural aubdlvisionr. 

Oa April 22, 1972, l l bdlvlaion plet waa filed purport&g to 

“hereby dedicate the reeds, l treets, pamageueys, and a11 l lleys showa 

thereou to the use of the public forever.” 

l%e Tcru Cuwtitutim authorizes the leglalature to provide for 

the conetructloa rod rlntenence of public roads. See Tex. Coast. 

art. VIII. 99; art. XI. 92; art. XVI, 924. Underthie grent of 

authority, the lellelature heo delegeted to coalreionerr courte the 

generel pwer to “(llay out l ud l atabllsh. chanSe and diacontinua 

public roada and hlghveys.” l ud to “(e]xerclee general control over 

all roads. highva:r~~, ferries end bridge6 la thclr countiee.” V.T.C.S. 

art. 2351(3) and (6). In addition to theoe general powera. 

comle8loner~ court8 are given further and more deteflcd povcro over 
Honorable Craat Jonas - Page i, (Jn-200) 

the coaatructlon and maintenance of public roads by the enactment of 

the County Road and Bridge Act. V.T.C.S. ert. 6702-l. The act glvaa 

cmssionera court* l uthorii:)! to 

(1) uke and enforce all reasonable and 

neceaaary rule* e~vl ordere for the conatructlon 

and uimteaauce of public road6 except ae 

prohibited by law; 

(2) hire the labor and purchase the machinery 

end equipment needed to conattuct and uintain 

public roadr. . . , 

V.T.C.S. art. 6702-l. i2.002(1~). 

In the exerkae of thio wthority , comlssioner~ court0 cannot go 

beyond the powers either expr~csoly granted or aeces~arlly implied from 

the lenguege of the grant. Canales v. Laughlin. 214 S.U.2d 451 (Tex. 

1948). Uhlle.coasliaaionere 'kurto have broad dlecretion In exercising 

powero expreaaly conferred on them. nevertheless the beeis for any 

action aunt be ultimately fcund in the conetltutlon or atatutea. - Id. 

at 453. 

Except in circumatancea not pertinent here, comtisdoners courts 

are not conetitutionally 01: statutorily authorized to construct or 

ulntain prlvete roada. Purthermore. case lav expressly prohibit6 the 

use of "county kbor. utexals or equipment for other than public 

uae.m Godley v. Duval Ceunl~!. 361 S.W.Zd 629. 630 (Tax. Civ. App. - 

San Antonio 1962. mo writ). Since ao besicl for the construction or 

maintenance of,privete roada fs found.in the conetltutlon or atetuteo. 

the ctiedonero court mey not exerclae Mach power. . 

..- 

. Nowever. cdeioeere ceurte l re expreaaly authorized by the 

County-Road and Bridge Act:to constxwct end uhtein public roaddr in 

their countleo. The Tuam Iklpreme Court set out the bemlc principlea 

for determining vben a road becomes a public road, l teting: 

All roado,vhl& have been laid out a nd latabllshed 

by authority' of r:he camni~eioners' courte l re 

$ubllc roada . . , . A road not orl@nally 

.eotabli&ed under the statute mey become public by 

long-continued URIC end l doptioe l a euch by the 

county comlulon~wa vith the l aoent of the owner 

et by preecript4an. A road may al80 become 

public. in the aenee that the public have the 

right to u#e it. by dedication. 

p. 880 
Nonorablc Crent Jonas - Page 3 (JH-200) 

Worthington v. Wade. 17 S.U. 520. 521 (Tex. 1891). These principlea 

have been carried forward into modern case law, and a-hat 

elaborated. 

Beelcelly. there are thr,ee way. a road may become public ouch 

that a county till have l uthority to uintein it. Firat. e road can 

be l atabllahed l b lnltlo aa a public road upon a comlaoioners court's 

ouu motim. Doughty 'I. DePec,, 152 S.U.2d 404. 409 (Tex. Clv. APP. - 

Amarillo 1941. writ ref'd v.<~.m.). or in rerpouse to an epplicatiou 

thcrefor by the requisite number of freeholderr under the provleions 

o f l rticle 6702-l - l procedure which requlrea coudemation and 

avardlng of damage*. V.T.C.S. art. 6702-l. 812.003 and 2.004. Second, 

a public road may be estebll~~hed by premrlptloo. In thla eituatlon. 

It ia oecessery to #how that an "uninterrupted u8er of the wey hes 

been made by the ~public. uutler au adverse claim of right. for the 

l tdutoty period of Ualtr,tion." Ladle.' Benevolent Society of 

Beaumont v. UagnolicCmete~~ Co.. 288 S.U. 812. 815 (Tat. Corn''' APP. 

1926. judgrt adopted). PinaiK l road uy become a public road by 

dedication. a setting epert by the fee owner for public use. and 

acceptance. See Hellbron v., St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of 

Texas, 113 S.W.10. 612 (Tex: Clv. App. 1908). 

Thus. In ansver to your f'lrst, question. we conclude that e county 

lo authoriced to maintain raalweya in rural l bdlvloiono if the roads 

were eetabli~hed eb inltlo em public road8 by the coaisaiouers court, 

by prescription. or by dedlumlon end l cceptance by the county. 

You l leo ask whether the filing o f l subdivision plat which 

purporta to "dedlcate~ the reeds. ,etreets. paaaagevaym and all 

alleya ; . . to% the ~u#e Of the public forever" la aufflclent to 

l uthorlxe~ c o untuintauxicc y o f th or r o a dtmyaTo . effect l proper 

dedlutkss-of .~knd .to public-or, -the owner umt uke l offer of 

'dedlcatlon, uh$@;m8< be qwpted. There are tvo kinda of dedlutloo 

- statutory .and comon-hv. 

A statutory de&atiom la 'one ude lo conformity vith the 

provlaloas of the mtatutea coaprioing Texas l ubdlviolon control. The 

reylatory l chac depends upnl the recordetloa of a developer's up or 

plat. Article 6626e. V.T.C.8.. providea that no plat of l ny 

mbdivlalon l lull be filed rmleoe it lo l uthorimd by the 

coul~olonera amrt . After approvel. the plet lo filed In the office 

of the county clerk of the county in vhlcb the land liea. Art. 6626a. 

12. The edwloners court, la authoriced to vitbhold plat l pproval 

If a mzbmltted plet doea nolc meet the rmqulreaanto of the act. Art. 

6626e. 94. But. if the cam&aoionera court doem not dloapprove the 

plat or doea not refuse to rwthorlre the filing of mch l plet in the 

county elerk'e office vh~a deciding whether a plat “meet0 the 

rcquiremente ae eet forth it1 this Act,” the comierionem court in 

effect approvea the plet end authoriree its film whether it etemps 

. e*, 
Nonoreblc Grant Jonee - Page 4 (Jll-200) 

” approved end l uthorlaed” ou the plat or vhether it stamps “not 

dleepproved and not unauthorlxed” thereon. Attorney General Opinion 

Vu-1438 (1962). 

If the 8ubdlvlder complies with the provleioue of article 6626a. 

em authoriced .fllirtS by the ctieelonere court become8 l “mere 

~iulsterial duty, the perfc~tmance of which may be compelled by 

mNdaN8.” Coliedonere Caret 0. Frank Jester Development Co., 199 

S.W.Zd 1004, 1007 (Ten. Civ. r$p. - Dallee 1947. writ ref’d n.r.e.1. 

&WXI-~W dedication8 are of two claoeea - crpreaa and i=pllad. 

Ladlea’ Danevolent Society ,:I Beaumont v. llagoolla Cemetery Co., 

maupra, at -814. In both. It ie neceeeary that there be en 

appropriation of the had by the ovner to public use. ln the one cane, 

by come esprea8 manlfestetlor of hio purpoee to devote the land to 

public use; In the othr,.by eiome act or course of conduct from which 

the law would imply +uch an kltent. Id. LonS-contlnued uae by the 

public la mfflclmt to imply ,B dedicaa by the ovner. <City of Uaco 

v. Fenter, ,132~ S.W.Zd 636. f,37 (TN. Clv. App. - Waco 1939, writ 

ref’d). 

8weverI to render a dedication complete. there must be an 

acceptance of the dedlcatloa. Cotieeloners’ Court v. Frank Jester 

Development Co.. e. et 11306. An acceptance, too. may be urpreea 

or implied. A ~eeioaera court expreesly accept8 a dedication vhen 

It vote8 on end note8 the scceptance In the minutes. Bowever, the 

mere flli.nS and apprwal of l aubdiviaion plat ahowing etreeta to be 

dedicated doe. not conatltu::e en acceptance. Id. et 1007. An 

l cuptame may he implied, for Inetance. from the cG&y’o feilure to 

aeeeee ~for taee io. comecr::ion with “1eyinS Sea and water mains. 

&mildl.nS-•ideval.ka.Gor .gredisl for 8treete.” City of Waco v. Fenter, 

m. et 63S. or uhere’.e county~makee repair8 upon *the street. or 

: pIat it on.official map8. d1lder.v. City of Branbam~3 S.U. 309. 311 

(TN. 18871. An wxe8tmce-bv al80 be irmlled fra lona-tlnued 

public we-of the p&p&. /Ibert v. Gulf, C. 6 S.P. IteilGay Co.. 21 

4.U. 779,:78o~(Tes. civ. *pp. - 1893, no writ). 

BNM., .in l euer to your .eecond que8tion. the filinS of e 

8ubdlvieion plat alone ie lneufflcient to l uthorlae e county to 

malntein road8 in rural 8ubd.ivlelooa, 8lnce the dedication 18 a mere 

offer. 

et 1007. 

M88lonera’ Court-v. Frank Jester Development Co., e. 

We note that the injuacc::lon in Buraet County, vbich prohibit8 the 

me of county equipment for, mdatenaoce of Private roada. doe8 not 

l lter the county’8 authority to maintain public roads. 

p. 882 
. I 

Honorable Grant Jones - Page 18 (JH-200) 

A ccm~lssioncrs court may we county equipment 

and uchincry to maintain roade in rural 

eubdivleiono if th, roads were cetabliehed ab 

lnitio ee public row16 by the coaaieaionere court. 

by prcecriptlon, or by dedication and acceptance. 

UATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

TOM GREFaN 

Firat Assistant Attorney Genersl 

DAVID R. RICRARDS 

Executive Aesiatant Attorney General 

Prepared by Rick Cllpln 

Assietant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMHITTEE 

Rick Gilpin. Chairmen 

David Brooks 

, 

Colln Carl 

SUM0 Gmrison 

Jim Woellinger 

Nancy Sutton