TEHE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AURTIN. Tmxae 78711 

October 21, 1974 

The Honorable James H. Whitcomb 

County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 867 

Columbus, Texas 78934 

Opinion No. H- 428 

Re: Whether residents of a 

commissioners precinct 

have a vested interest in 

funds assigned to that 

Dear Mr. Whitcomb: precinct. 

You have informed us that commissioners precinct lines in Colorado 

County have been redrawn to equalize the population in each precinct. One 

result of this redistricting was the transfer of a substantial number of residents from Precinct One to Precinct Three. You ask if these persons 

“have any vested rights in the balances of the various funds of Precinct 

No. One, including its Road and Bridge Fund?” 

The fund in which you are primarily interested, the Road and Bridge 

Fund, has been the su,bject of litigation in relation to its distribution 

among precincts. That fund consists of ad valorem tax revenues (TEX. 

CONST. art. 8, seco 9) and motor vehicle registration fees (V. T. C. S. 

art. 6675a-10) D 

V. T. C. S. article 6740, which relates to the distribution of the Road 

and Bridge Fund, provides, in part: 

The commissi,oners court shall see that the 

road and bridge Sund of their county is judiciously 

a,nd equi~tabl,y expended on, the roads and bridges 

of ihei:r county, ard, as nearrly as t.he condition 

and necessity of the roads wi,hl. permit, i,t shall 

be e>:pended Ian each county commissioners precinct in proportion to the amount collected in such 

precinct. D . . 

pm 1981 
. 

The Honorable James H. Whitcomb. page 2 (H-428) 

However, there is no vested right to have any certain distribution 

of the funds among precincts. This issue was decided by the Texas 

Supreme Court in Stovall v. Shivers, 103 S. W. 2d 363 (Tex. 1937), 

where it was said: 

It will be observed that the article in question 

provides that the road and bridge fund shall be 

judiciously and equitably expended on the roads 

and bridges of the county, and, as nearly as the 

condition and necessity of the roads will permit, 

shall be expended in each county commissioners 

precinct in proportion to the amount collected in 

such precinct. In our opinion, there is obviously nothing in this article which compels the 

commissioners court to divide the road and 

bridge fund according to any fixed mathematical 

formula, and apportion same in advance for 

the purpose of being expended in any given precinct. The use of the word ‘expended’ to our 

minds clearly suggests that said funds shall be 

apportioned and paid out from time to time as 

the necessity for their use arises in the ordinary 

administration of the county affairs.: By article 

2342 of the Revised Statutes, it is provided that 

the several commissioners, together with the 

county judge, shall compose the ‘commissioners 

court. ’ Such court is manifestly a unit, and is 

the agency of the whole county. The respective 

members of the commissioners court are therefore primarily representatives of the whole 

county, and not merely representatives of their 

respective precincts. The duty of the commissioners court is to transact the business, protect the i,nterests, and promote the welfare of 

the coun~lty as a who1.e. . a . This fund is, of 

course, for the benefit of all, roads and bridges 

of the county. These provisions of the law, as 

well as others which might be mentioned, 

clearly contemplate that the commissioners 

court of each county shall regard the roads and 

p* 1982 
The Honorable James H. Whitcomb, page 3 (H-428) 

highways of the county as a system, to be laid 

out, changed, repaired, improved, and maintained, as far as practical, as a whole to the 

best interests and welfare of all the people of 

the county. It is clearly contemplated that all 

roads and bridges of the county shall be maintained, repaired, and improved when necessary, as the conditions may require, regardless 

of the precinct in which same may be located, 

so far as the funds will equitably justify. This 

being true, we think that a commissioners 

court cannot voluntarily disable itself from 

performance of this general obligation by arbitrarily dividing the road and bridge fund according to some fixed standard, and apportioning 

same to be expended in a particular precinct, 

to the detriment of roads and bridges in other 

precincts. 103 S. W. 2d at 366-67. 

, ‘385 S. W. 2d 702 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1964, 

writ ref’d. n. r. e. ); Alley v. Jones, 311 S. W. 2d 717 (Tex. Civ.App. --Beaumont 

1958, writ ref’d. n. r. e. ); Garland v. Sanders, 114 S. W. 2d 302 (Tex. Civ. App. 

--Dallas 1938, writ dism’d); Attorney General Opinion O-1091 (1939). 

Those road and bridge funds consisting of automobile registration fees 

are not subject to the requirements of article 6740. They are governed 

by article 6675a-10 and are to, be expended in a manner which will give the 

county a uniform system of roads without reference to precinct lines. Stovall 

V. Shivers, supra; Attorney General Opinion V-566 (1948); Attorney General 

Opinion O-4548 (1942); Attorney General Opinion O-3358 (1941). 

Furthermore, there .is no longer a constitutional prohibition against 

transferrirxg surpl,us road and bridge funds to the general fund. TEX. CONST. 

art. 8, sec. 9: At,forney Genera,1 Opini,on H-194 (1.974). 

Some road and bridge funds are not required to be apportioned among 

precincts; the remaining funds are not required to be apportioned by a static 

formula. In addition, road and bridge funds may be transferred to the general 

fund. It is therefore our opinion that residents of a particular precinct have no 

p0 1983 
The Honorable James H. Whitcomb, page 4 (H-4281 

vested right in funds collected from or apportioned to that precinct. We 

believe that the language in Stovall describing the county-wide responsibility 

of the commissioners court would also preclude a conclusion that residents 

of a precinct had vested interest in any other fund. 

SUMMARY 

Residents of a commissioners precinct who, 

through redistricti.ng, are shifted to another precinct have no vested interest in the funds assigned 

to their former precinct. 

Very truly yours, 

P 

J HN L. Aa H L 

Attorney General of Texas 

Lu 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Cha,irman 

Opinion Committee 

pe 1984