. . . 

THEA~TORNEYGENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr. 

Administrator 

Texas Liquor Control Board 

State Office Building 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Stevenson: 

Opinion No. WW-979 

Re: Whether the District, County 

or Justice Court has jurisdiction 

to try a suit for the forfeiture 

of illicit alcoholic beverages, 

and related question. 

Your request for an opinion reads as follows: 

"Subsection (b) of Section 42 of Article I of the 

Texas Liquor Control Act, provides that the Attorney General, 

the District Attorney, and the County Attorney, or any of 

them, shall, after notification of a seizure of illicit 

alcoholic beverages, institute a suit for the forfeiture 

of such alcoholic beverages in the name of the State of 

Texas in any Court of competent jur:sdiction in the county 

wherein such seizure was made. 

"Section 8 of Article V of the Constitution of the 

State of Texas, provides that the District Court shall have 

original jurisdiction in all suits in behalf of the State to 

recover forfeitures. 

"In the light of this Constitutional Provision, we have 

interpreted the phrase, 'Court of competent jurisdiction,' to 

be a District Court only. Thus, should a Justice of the Peace 

Court adjudge alcoholic beverages to be illicit and enter an 

Order of Forfeiture, we would consider the judgment to be void, 

and we would feel impelled to not pay the Court costs in 

connection with the proceeding. 

"We, therefore, respectfully request your valuable opinion 

on the following questions: 

"1. Which type of trial Court, either 

District, County, or Justice of the Peace, has 

original jurisdiction to try a suit for the 

forfeiture of illicit alcoholic beverages? 
‘- . 

Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Page 2 (ww-979) 

"2. If the District Court only is 

your answer to question No. 1, is the Board 

authorized to pay Court costs of a Justice 

of the Peace Court that has entered an Order 

of Forfeiture of illicit alcoholic beverages, 

and, does title to such beverages pass to the 

State of Texas? 

"These questions are not the subject of any pending 

or proposed litigation." 

The District Court has original jurisdiction to try a suit for the 

forfeiture of illicit alcoholic beverages. Section 8 of Article V of the 

Constitution of the State of Texas, reads in part as follows: 

"The District Court shall have original jurisdiction 

. . . in all suits in behalf of the State to recover . . . 

forfeitures. . . .ll 

No other court of original jurisdiction can acquire original jurisdiction over 

the subject matter of a forfeiture suit since such jurisdiction is granted 

exclusively to the District Court by the Constitution. Meyers v. State, 105 

S.W. 48, (Civ. App. 1907); State v. Compton, 142 Tex. 494, 179 S.W.2d 501 

(1944). 

Any judgment rendered in a Justice of the Peace Court disposing of 

illicit alcoholic beverages by an order of forfeiture is void for want of 

jurisdiction, and does not pass title to the State of Texas. 

Before the Board is authorized to pay the court costs of such proceedings there must be an appropriation and a pre-existing law authorizing 

s&d expenditure. 

Acts 1959, 56th Legislature, 3rd called session, ch. 23, Appropriation 

Act, p. 662, Item 54, appropriates funds for the Texas Liquor Control Board to 

pay court costs. 

For pre-existing authority for the payment of court costs to the 

Justice Court we must look to the Texas Liquor Control Act. 

Article 66, Texas Penal Code, Sec. 42(b), reads in part as follows: 

"It shall be the duty of the Attorney General, the 

District Attorney, and the County Attorney, or any of them, 

when notified by the officer making the seizure, or by the 

Texas Liquor Control Board, that such seizure has been made, 

to institute a suit for forfeiture of such alcoholic beverages 

and property . . . in any court of competent jurisdiction in 
Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Pa.9 3 (ww-979) 

the county wherein such seizure was made. ,. . . The 

costs of such proceedings shall be paid by the Board, 

out of the funds derived under the provisions of said 

Section 30, or from any other fund available to the 

Board for such purpose." [Fxphasis added] 

There is no other provision of the Texas Liquor Control Act which would 

authorize payment of the costs. Since the present suit was not in "any 

court of competent jurisdiction" Sec. 42(b) does not authorize payment of 

the court costs for a forfeiture suit in Justice Court. 

This opinion is limited to civil suits for the forfeiture of illicit 

alcoholic beverages and we are not called upon and are not deciding the question of whether or not an order that such beverages belonging to a defendant 

in a criminal proceeding be sold would be but an incident of that proceeding. 

SUMMARY 

1. The District Court is the only court with original 

jurisdiction to try a suit for the forfeiture of illicit 

alcoholic beverages. 

2. The Texas Liquor Control Board is not authorized to 

pay court costs of a Justice of the Peace Court that has 

entered an order of forfeiture of illicit alcoholic beverages, 

and said order does not pass title to such beverages to the 

State of Texas. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

Cecil Cammack, Jr. 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE REVIEWED FORTHEATTORNEY GENERAL 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman BY: Morgan Nesbitt 

Bob Armstrong 

Watson C. Arnold 

Elmer McVey