TEZE&~~OIRNEY GENE-L 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Olan R. Van Zandt 

Chairman, Civil Jurisprudence Committee 

Senate of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Oninion No. O-462 

Rk: The constitutionality of House Bill 

No. 632, which provides for the 

attachment of adjacent territory 

for zoning purposes by towns of 

not less tha,n four thousand lnhabltants within counties of not less 

than three hundred thousand and 

not more than three hundred and 

fifty thousand inhabitants according to the last preceding Federal 

census. 

We have your letter 

as to the constitutionality 

After careful study and analysis of the bill in question we are of the opinion that It attempts to enact a local 

law and therefore falls within the prohibitions made by Article 

5, Section 56, of the Constitution of the State of Texas. 

of March 9 requesting our opinion 

of the above mentioned bill. 

After consulting the last preceding Federal census we 

find that only one county In the State falls within the population brackets fixed In the bill, that county being Dallas 

County. 

In Bexar County v. Tynan, 97 S. W. (2d) 467, the 

Supreme Court of Texas, speaking through the Commission of 

Appeals, held unconstitutional House Bill 490 (Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, Article 3912-B), which provided that 

.e in counties in which the population was as much as 290,000 

and less than 310,000, according to the last preceding Federal census, the precinct and county officers should retain from 

fees of office certain named amounts, the result being that 

in such counties the retained compensation was greatly~ reduced from what was allowed by the prior laws. 

At the time said bill was enacted only one county fell 

within the population brackets fixed therein, said county be- 

.lng Bexar County. 
Hon. Olan R. Van Zandt, March 21, 1939, page 2 o-462 

A careful study of the above referred to case, and the 

authorities therein cited has convinced us that R. B. 632 falls 

squarely within its purview. 

The Court quotes with approval therein the following 

language used by the Supreme Court of Arkansas In the case of 

Leonard v. Road Maintenance District No. 1, 61 S. W. (2d) 70 

and 

the 

In the case of Randolph v. State, 36 S.W. (2d) 484, 

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas indicated in dictum In 

said opinion that where only three counties fell within the 

population brackets fixed in the act In question in that case, 

it probably offended against the provlslons of Article 3, 

Section 56, of the Constitution of Texas. The act in question 

was held unconstitutional on other grounds but the dictum above 

referred to clearly indicated the Court's view. 

71, as follows: 

"The rule Is that a classification cannot be adopted 

arbitrarily upon a ground which has no foundation in 

differences of situation or circumstances of the 

munlclpa7.ltles placed in different classes. There 

must be some reasonable relatlon between the situation of munlclpalltles classified and the purposes 

and objects to be attained. There must be something 

* * * which Fn some reasonable degree accounts for 

the division into classes." 

In this bill no distinctlon is sought to be made between urban counties and .rural counties generally, but the 

bill includes within Its population brackets only the county 

of Dallas, and is considered by us to be a purely local bill. 

Since the bill In our opinion is unconstitutional for 

the reason above set out, we deem It unnecessary to discuss 

any other grounds of unconstitutionality which may be embraced 

in It. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

.ERS:AMM:wc By s/E. R. Simmons 

E. R. Simmons 

Assistant 

OF'TEXAS