GENERAL 

Honorable Dean Martin 

County Attorney 

Grayson County 

Sherman, Texas 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

RE: Authority of Grayson County 

to accept a deed from the KansasOklahoma and Gulf Railroad Company 

to a bridge lying between Texas 

and Oklahoma spanning the Red 

River about 9 miles east of Denison, Texas and related questions. 

We have your letter in regards to the above matter. 

6, 1966 

Opinion No. C-703 

You have posed the following questions for our consideration. 

"1 . Would there be any legal objection 

for Grayson County, Texas, and Bryan County, 

Oklahoma, to accept a joint deed to the 

bridge in question which lies across the Red 

River? 

2. If such a deed is permissible and 

legal, could the Commissioners Court of Grayson County, Texas, authorize tax monies to 

be expended for the operation and maintenance 

of that part of the bridge which does not lie 

in Grayson County, Texas?" 

In passing on this matter, it is pertinent to mention 

that the United States Supreme Court passed on the question 

of the OWneFShiD of the bed of the Red River in the case of 

State ofOklahoma v. State of Texas, 261 U.S. 345 (1923), 

wherein it was decided that tl- State of Oklahoma owned such 

part of the bed of the Red Ri& as lies north of the medial 

line' of the river and "The full title and ownership of so 

much of the bed of the river as lies south of its medial 

line are in the United States". 

Here we are concerned with ownership and maintenance 

of a bridge which is not only outside the territorial limits 

of the County of Grayson but also wholly outside the territorial limits of the State of Texas, with the exception of 

the abutment to the bridge on the Texas side, which lies in 

Grayson County, Texas. 

-3390- 
Honorable Dean Martin, page 2 (C-703) 

We assume that the road leading to the bridge, or the 

road to be built is or will be a County road, and not a 

State Highway. See Attorney General's Opinion O-5775 (194&), 

which we enclose herewith. 

Section 2, Article 11 of the State Constitution provides 

as follows: 

"The construction of jails, court-houses and 

bridges, and the establishment of county poor 

houses and farms, and the laying out, construction 

and repairing of county roads shall be provided 

for by general laws." (Emphasis added.) 

Pursuant to' the foregoing provisions of the constitution the following laws touching on the subject were 

passed: 

1. Article 718, Vernon's Civil Statutes, providegin 

part,as follows. 

"After having been authorized as provided 

in Chapter One of this title, the Commissioners 

Court of a county may lawfully Issue the bonds 

of said county for the following purposes: 

. . . 

4. To purchase and construct bridges 

for public purposes within the county or across 

a stream that constitutes a boundary line of 

the . ..." (Emphasis added.) 

2. Article 6796, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides as 

follows: 

"Whenever any stream constitutes either in 

whole or in part the boundary line between two 

or more counties, or when two or more counties 

are jointly interested in the construction of 

a bridge, whether over a stream or elsewhere, 

it shall be lawful for the counties so divided 

or interested to jointly erect bridges over 

such stream or over any other stream, upon such 

equitable terms as the Commissioners Court of 

each county interested may agree upon." 

3. Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides, in 

part,as follows: 

-3391- 
, 1 

Honorable Dean Martin, Page 3, (c-703) 

"Each commissioners court shall: 

. . . 

4. Build bridges and keep them in repair. 

II 

. . . 

In passing on Article 877, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

which is the predecessor of Article 718, and which has substantially the same language as Section 4 of Article 718, 

supra, the Supreme Court in Bell County v. Lightfoot, Atty. 

Qen., 104 T. 346, 138 S.W. 381 (1911) held: 

I, 

. . . That the authority to construct bridges 

for public purposes, embraces the repair and 

maintenance of such structures.' 

This holding is ileo'~supported by Aransas.Countv 

v. Coleman-Fulton Pasture Co., 108 T. 21b, 191 S.W. 553, 

71917). 

Touching on the point as to constitutionality of expenditures for bridges crossing streams wholly outside the territorial limits of the state,it is s&ted in 11 C.J.S. 1015, 

Bridges, Sec. 17, as follows: 

"A state has been held authorized to participate in the construction of interstate bridges 

as against the contention that the river to be 

bridged did not form the boundary line where the 

technical boundary was on the high portion of 

the bank of such river. . ..' 

mission of Texas v. Vaughn, 288 S.W. 

Citing El.;~;;~ornxwCiv;App. 192b, error ref.) 

In the Vaughn case, supra, the court stated: 

"The contention that Texas cannot pay the 

costs of any portion of the bridge beyond her 

territorial limits Is also without merit. 

Article 3, Section 56, Subd. 6 of the Constitution, authorizes the Legislature to enact 

local or special laws 'for the erection of 

bridges crossing streams which form boundaries 

between this and any other state.' No limltation is placed upon this grant of power either 

with reference to the territory over which an 

Interstate bridge might be constructed or as 

-3392- 
Honorable Dean Martin, page 4,(c-703) 

to its cost, In fact, the makers of the fundamental law knew that one end of an interstate 

bridge must of necessity rest within another 

state, that territory of both states must be 

spanned by it, that the occasion might arise 

when such a bridge would be of vital necessity, 

or at least of much greater value to this state 

than to the other state into which it ooened, 

and they left all these matters to the.Legislature without any.restriction upon its authority 

to construct the bridge. . . . (Emphasis added.) 

"In some jurisdictions by Legislative enactment the costs of bridges crossing boundary 

streams between counties, or In some instances 

between cities, are to be borne equally by the 

respective counties or cities interested. . . . 

The broader rule was recognized by the Texas 

Legislature in Article 6796, where it is provided that adjoining counties may contract to 

build bridges over boundary streams 'upon such 

equitable terms as the commissioners' court of 

each county interested may agree upon.'" 

The Vaughn case, supra, defines a boundary as follows: 

"The contention that Red River is not within Texas and does not form her boundary is without merit with respect to the subject matter of 

this suit. While the south cut bank does legally 

and technically form the boundary with reference 

to Texas civil and criminal jurisdiction and 

ownership over the territory, still, with reference 

to preventing social and commercial intercourse 

with her sister state, a primary object for her 

entering the Union, the river forms the barrier 

separating them. A bridge on either bank of the 

river will not remove the barrier. The structure 

required must necessarily rest on each high bank 

of the river, span the entire territory between 

them including the river , with its ends opening 

Into each of the states, and when this Is done 

there is of course but one structure with reference tb its use. Therefore, from that viewpoint, 

not only the banks, but the river and all territory necessary to be spanned by the bridge in 

order to effectthe purposes of social and business 

intercourse between the states, is the true 

boundare." (Emphasis added.) 

-3393- 
Honorable Dean Martin: page 5; (C-703) 

Keiser v. Union County, 156 Pa. 315, 26 A. 1066, (1893), 

decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, expresses the 

view upon this question as follows: 

"A stream is equally the boundary line, 

whether the line Is Its middle thread, or its 

westernmost ripple. To find the boundary, you 

must find the stream and then the part of it 

defined as the line; but, wherever that is, it 

is the stream, and it is the boundarv onlv beTherefore, it is our opinion that the County of Grayson 

is legally authorized to accept the proposed deed and the 

County of Grayson is authorized to expend tax monies for the 

operation and maintenance of said bridge. 

SUMMARY 

The County of Grayson is legally authorized 

to accept the proposed deed which will convey a 

bridge across the Red River, and Grayson County 

is authorized ?o expend tax monies for the operation and maintenance of said bridge, 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

DAVID LONGORIA U 

DL/vmo 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Assistant Attorney General 

:3394- 
Honorable Dean Martin, page 6, (c-703) 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Arthur Sandlln 

John Banks 

C. Daniel Jon@, Jr. 

APPROVED FOR TIiE ATTORNEY GJINERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

Enclosure 

-3395-