xwaerable Job0 XL sbeb 

Crida8i Diatrkt Attorney 

sub Antedo. fww 

Dau ear: 

opialom xwaawr 04139 

Re: Doe. tba w8rraat law permit 

tba io*wwe d tin30 rrrraata 

te k l p M t o n M y lateral 

r wd8. or dea ltd hen l Ki.t 

w* Uk wwledge r ec eid p yt o uOr Jda irqo aa 8.t d 

Aa#wt l4, Ml Qwte from your ktter a8 t-t 

“‘PO.0 tbo warrut hw prdt tu to tssw time 

wurMtetok*patwylatualrodo,orabould 

before w8rrua cu k wed 

Tkmpowusdtbe coanmiW~rs* Cwrta b nlaaat 

Co~btli~galuo~~rolld8,~glu~o~to[Luutleafor 

tbe parpew. are gowrwd w&ally by tba l tatutw. This foliowa from 

tbe coaxxmutd of tbe Cowtitutloa. Artlcb ll. seuttw 2. that tlm laying 

art, construct md repriring of web raadm .I141 k prewidad for by 

gewr81 hwo. srticle 239, PTernon’a Annotated CIviI Stitatas, pwwidm 
-xcach~*a~corvtahaul 

“3. lay wt and establish. chase and diacwtlwa pebm roads ad highways. 

+**+ 

‘6. lb~rclw gomoral comtrd over all roads. 

atghwaya. forrlee ad brtdea tn their cowtlea.w 

*ower te iawe time warrant8 in paymarht for tha conl Wtia 0 ef r ea d8 h a s b eels a np lifed r o m the da tay d wtb * to 

c o wtr wt a a lmaLa a . itv. a r Loper, 217 SiW. 3738 an alw Sa8 

Fwxkio Gouaty V. M&lam, S8 Ten. 243; Strattw v. Commiaaiomera’ 

coo& I37 s.w. llto: Mema v. Mc~%ll, 146 S. lk’.(Zd) 332. 

In~dtl#forvpoirywa~thrttacrC~a~ra’ 

Court has adhority b iaaw timr wariants for impr0Wawrt of all 

cowty rwda, sad we hww of w wthwity that reqairea the Comda- & me;*í Co utr e t l p dfty he apadfie road or roads t0 b e h p r 0W& 

WhenwapuKkroadaareaamedLntha0otkeaad 

order it wwld be t0 the diacreliom of the Comnai~alwora’ Cwrt to 

iaaaa the warrwtm for the iaaprovemwt ef any cewty rod Brown v. 

pmtop couuty court, 90 8. E. ti6t wright v. AUW. ZS7 S. W. 980. 

X0wever. if the CwmaksaIeWrd Cwrt sees fit to 

l ~ce~r~~~~*~o+br.~~aro~~~ 

L@AyAT a cwdlK08 la tho amtiw sad order whkhfisw 

ilmpmw& SW Moore v. cdfm 300 s. w. 3w; 

Fletcher v. Sly. S3 9. W. U7. When the reads are Km8 desigaate+& the 

Commiaaianr**Ceurtmwtimprweth0w partk8lar reads. Blaeb 

v. sbagth, 346 s. w. 79. 

h reply to w diwuaaiw of Article i?36&, Verwda 

Amwtated Civil statute*, tbia *p-t ba8 always cigltemded that 

~aartlc&~asstr#raAptb~totrtL&gprpowafor~a 

cowty may lawhlly laaw time warraata. Said article marely re(pk~Sfarcktrll~llnukOdplbllcim~~bl,C~~Sraa 

mrralcipalitlea and preacribe~ the steps which must k taken prier 

to the iaauaace d evidewea d iadabtrdnmma for much lmprevemanta. 

This ctiowrzOn wu wphsld in the case d Adam@ v. hAsGill, aopra. 
I H0a0rable Joha R. shwk. pair, I3 

SpadfkaUy aaaweriag yau qwatlw, it is oar 0piaioa tbat 

Un Comadaaitmora* Coarl has tba authority to imw tima warraata 

to improva say lateral road la Uu cowty. X8 imauiag a&l warraate 

the wa r mut scomply t l tricUy with tin terms d 4irUck ;L36&. If 

aa l marpacy vista, mash as im defiaed la Section 5 of Article 23691, 

thw the restrict&ma impawd by Sutimm 2.3 and 4 ot aaid l r Uc la 

de wt apply. 

With raferace to tin $80.0@0 iaaw d &oad and Bridge warruts meaUoaed ia poor rqwat, this department 0fficiaUy apprwed 

this imaot on August 21, 1941. when part of the isaw was fuadod into 

bwds. 

True- that this aaawua ywr qwatiw, we an 

ATTORXEY GEMERAL OF TEXAS 

ti /a/ Clad 0. BaoUuwa 

ClMdO.BUthSiW 

Assist&at 

APPROVEDAUG.t6.1941 

APPROVED 

OPXNXOLO COMMXTTEE 

BY BWB 

cHAxlwlAN 

I