March 28, 1952 

Hon. Homer L. Moss Opinion No. V-1424 

County Attorney 

'Wheeler County ' Re: Authority of the comWheeler, Texas missioners' court toP charge to the allotment 

_ 

of the road and bridge 

fund of one precinct 

money expended on roads 

in that precinct by a 

commissioner of another 

Dear Sir: precinct. 

Your request for an op9nion ~of this office presents the following question: 

Where a county commissioner of one 1 

precinct repairs county roads in another 

,commissioner's precinct in his county, 

without the consentof the resident commissioner, can the commissioners' court 

charge to the allotment of the resident 

commissioner's precinct the amount of 

money expended for such repairs? 

Article 2342; V.C.S., provides: 

"The several cornmissIoners, together with the county judge, shall compose the 'Commissioners Court,' and the 

county judge, when present, shall be the 

presiding officer of said court.' 

Article 2351, V.C.S., provides: 

"Each commissioners court shall: 

. . . 

"3 . Lay out and establish, change 

and discontinue public roads and highways. 

"4 . Build bridges and keep them In 

repair. . . . 
Hon. Homer L. Moss, page 2 (v-1424) 

"6. Exercise general cbntrol over 

all roads, highways, ferries and bridges 

in their counties. e . ." 

In view of the foregoing provisions it 

is the duty of the commissioners' court, and not 

the individual commissioners, to construct and 

maintain the roads of the county. Each commissioner must keep himself informed of the condition of the roads and the need for repairs and 

improvements in his precinct and report this information at each term of the commissioners court. 

Art. 673, V.C.S. A commissioner should have the 

approval of the commissioners' court before any 

work on the roads is performed because individual 

commissioners have no authority to bind the count 

$ 

by their separate actions. Canales v. Laughlin, 

1 7 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.2d 451 (1948); Swain v. Montgomery County 154 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941, 

error ref. ,.A.,.). However, the commissioners' 

court may ratify that which it might have authorized originally. Cameron County v. Fox, 61 S.W.2d 

483 (Tex. Comm. App. 1933); State v. Carries, 106 

S.W.2d 397 (Tex..Civ. App. 1937). We 'therefore 

assume that the work outlined in your request was 

either performed upon an order of the commissioners' 

court or subsequently ratified. 

It was held in Attorney General's Opinion O-4548 (1942) that it is the duty of the commissioners' court to construct and maintain the 

roads of a county as a whole without regard to precinct lines. Likewise, in Attorney General's Opinion v-566 (1948), it was held that automobile registration fees paid into the road and bridge fund of 

the county should be expended in such a manner as 

to give the county as a.whole a uniform system of 

roads without reference to precinct lines. 

In Canales v. Laughlin, su ra and Stovall 

v. Shivers, 129 Tex. 256, 103 S.W.2d -9 3 3 (193m 

was ,hela that the commissioners' court in maintainina 

and repairing the roads of the county shall regard - 

the roads as a unit and expend money for such maintenance to the best interests and welfare of all 

the people of the county. We quote the following 

from Stovall v. Shivers: 
Hon. Homer L. Moss, page 3 (v-1424) 

II 

. . . 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 mem- 

~bers 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 interests; and 

promote the welfare of the county as a 

whole. Among~the powers .conferred upon 

such court by article 2351 are the following: The power to lay,out and establish, change and discontinue roads and 

highways, the power to build bridges and 

keep them in repair, and the power to 

exercise general control over all roads, 

highways, ferries, and bridges in their 

counties. They have the power to levy a 

tax not to exceed 15 cents on the $100 

valuation for roads and bridges. 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 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 we,lfare of all the people 

of the county. It is clearly contemplated that all roads and bridges of the county 
i 

. - 

. 223 

-- _ 

Hon. Homer L. Moss, page 4 (V-1424) 

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) 

Since it is the duty of the commissioners'. 

court to maintain and repair county roads as a whole, 

It had the authority to authorize the work outlined 

In your request, without the consent of the resident 

'commissioner, and charge to the allotment of that 

precinct the amount of money expended. 

SUMMARY P 

The commissioners' court has authority to charge to the allotment of the road 

and bridge fund of one precinct money expended on roads situated in that precinct 

by a commissioner of another precinct provided such expenditure was authorized by 

the commissioners' court. Canales v. - 

Lau hlin 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.2d 451 

~*&ovall v, Shivers, 129 Tex. 256, 

103 S.W.2d 363 (1937). 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

E. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant &e& 

Assistant 

Charles D. Nathews 

First Assistant 

JR:Ulh