OFmOE OF THE ATI’ORNEY GENERAL OP1MA6 

AUSnN 

Hamrable Murphy tile 

County Auditor 

Liberty couflty 

Liberty, TePam 

Dar sir: 
Honorable Eurphy Cole, pege ,#2 

The broad general purpose or House Bill JaSS is 

to essist the counties and derined rosa distriots 1s the 

retirement or obligations ore&ted for the aoastraatlos of 

roads, whiah function has been deolared to be.one resting 

upon the State, and became of whioh, there now rests upon 

the State both a legal and moral obligation to oompensate 

and rehfhurse au& countlee and uerfned road dietriot ror 

having performed such iunctions and to that extent the 

funds provided by this Aot shall ooastituts ralr, Just asa 

equitable coszpensatlon, repayment and reimbursement to sald 

counties and dellned road dlstriots, ana i'ully dlsaharges 

the legally implied obligations of the State to so compansate, repay and reimburse suoh agencies of'the State. 

Two methods hare been devised under this Aot by 

whloh said obllg5tlone are to be dlsoharged, the rlrst being 

a ab55t psrtloipatfoa in the one-oent gasoline tar 0r obllgstlons the prooeeds or nchich have aatually been expeadsd 

upon State deslgaatea highwsys and by inaired partlal~tlon 

in meld one-oent gasoline tax through the *Lateral Road AooouIlt~ ,to whiah aaoount is oredlted any exoess funds romalning after all primary obligations hare been alscharge&. 

This moon& method la designed to distrlbate such exsoss 

was equitably and ratably to all or the aountles ana 

defined road distrlots or the Stats or Texas in aooordanoe 

with the ratio provided. 

It will be noted that the entire hat treats of the 

rstlrement of obligations already areated, the proseeds of 

whloh have been expended upon State deslgnsted highways. 

It cont~plates asaiatiug the counties and derinea ma aimtriets in retiring, paykg.off ana dimsbarging suah obligat%ons, and that the rurther oonstmetlon at highways, UeSlgnated as State highways, rests exaluslrely upon the State 

Hi&hway Commlsslon, and the bounties are forbiUden by the 

prorlslon5 or seotlon 3 0r'Houme Bill #6SS to sake any 

rusther lmproremeute or said highway8 8x55pt by the aoquisltlon 0r rlgbt.5-or-my thereror. 

The racts which gtre rise .to your rest questfon 

are, briefly, as follows: In 1952 the DaptOn-Cleveland 

Road in Liberty county was 8 part of the State Righrar 

Systm and was designated as State Klghway #l46, and later 
586 

Honorable Eburphy Cole, page 1$'3 

this designation was llf'tea or abandoned end said designation applied to another road. Subsequently, that is, betreen 

Septeuber 27, 1932 and prior to January 2, 1939, Liberty 

County construoted the Deyton-Cleveland Roed v3th bond fun&. 

To mummmrlze, it must be noted that such designation ~55 

abandoned and the State Rlghway number which had been applied 

to the Dayton-Cleveland Road was applied to another mad, 

namely, the Liberty-Livingston Road. Further, it 15 admitted 

that there was no debt existing at the time said mad was 

abandoned as e pert of the State Highway System, whioh, la 

our opinion, excludes from partiaipation in the one-oent -5 

tax the obllgetlons subsequently created for the aonatmotion 

or,auoh roads, except in such proportion 55 the obligations 

laay participate in any run65 accruing to the county throngh 

the wLateral Road Acoount?. 

Cur construction of paragraph 3, Seotlon 2, fs that 

only muoh roads as had tormerly oonstltutea a part or the State 

Highway SyatesI and whose status had been lost through change, 

relooatlon or abandonsent, that bed been aonatructed ulth bond 

tPnd8 and the obllgatlOn8 issued to secure swh funds sare outstanding at the time the road vas a part or the Syeta, aad 

whloh bonds or obligations hfid not been dlseharged or retired 

at the time such road lost its designation either throwhF 

ahanus, relooatloa or abandonment, asn prtlolpate 55 aa 

mellgible issue* under the tez%s and pmvieions or House 'Bill 

#6-. We oannot aonceive that the Legislature intended tie 

pexwlt bonds, the pmcesds or which are to be expended oa a 

roaa formerly oonstitntlag a part of the State Highuar System, 

to pertloipate la the primary benerite of the one-oent gasoline tax ii'snah bonds are issued aubsequsnt~to the abandonseat or such road as a part of the State High-y SystSr. 

Further, there being no evident intention by the HleIhuay Comm.l55lon or reaeeiguatlng suoh road as a part or the Hi 

systes, we think the exoeptloa provlasa in 'aabseotioa F a) % 

seotiOn 6, paragraph 2, lnappllcable to this issue 0r bonds. 

Themrore, we conaluae that your rlrst questloa nnst 

be answered in the negative. 

The raata underlying your 5800na q~estlon are, briariy, that in 1929 bonds were voted ror the eon5truatloa 0r 5 
Xonorable Murphy Cole. page #4 

road then known as Liberty-Livingston F&ad, and that in 

1932 said road was deslgoeted as State Highway #leg, b&, 

to date, the bonds have not been issued or the road eoustruotea. 

In order that suoh bonds may now be issued and be 

eligible for pertlolpatlon in the one-cent gesollne tax as 

Provided la House Bill #aSa, said raats must come within 

the apparent exception provided la paragraph 3, subseotlou 

(a), ;iectloa 0, of said bill. This exception reeds, in 

pert: 

*In addition to and regardless or the other 

provi5lon5 or this Aot. all bonds voted by a 

county prior to January 2, 1939, insofar as 

amounts of saxe were ox siay be issued end the 

prooeeas aotually expenaea 10 the constmotion 

or roads Welch are a part or the designated 

System or State highways, shall be allglbls 

in the dletrlbution of the moneys coming into 

emid County sad~ Road District Highway Fuud, 

the 5am5 as provided ror other bonds under 

this Aot, and 8~8 of the date of the aeslgsatlon of said made as a part of the State 

system * * l ì. 

When a statute expre55e5 5 general intent or purpo50 

and afterwards an iacon5lsteat ~ertlcnler latent, the latter 

15 to be regarded as an exception to the former an&~&Ah ars 

permitted to stand. Also, where one section of~an Aot prs; 

scribes a general rule which, without qualifloatlou, Would 

embraoe an entire class oi subjeote and another pressrlbes 

a different rule for lndlvldusl subjeots or the 5amo ela55 

~51atter will be ooustrued as an exodption to the ge5Srii 

See 39 Texas Jurlsptidence;i Section 101; also milker 

vs. &or, 266 S. OF. 499, Cameron ~5. city or Waoo, 8 S. w. 

(26) 249. mrther, it has been held that a genercil provision or a statute nust yield to a speclal one so rar as 15 

necessary to give errect to the partioular subjoot of the 

speolal provision. See'Clty or Austin vs.~Cehlll, 88 9. W342, rehearing asnled, 89 S. W. 552, also Csllaghaa vs* H*m, 

90 S.X. 319, error ratneed, In the case of Stevens vs. Stats, 

159 s. w. 305, the court 0r Crlmlml A~pesls held that chess 
Honorable Murphy Cole, page #3 

two previsions of the snmw law are in oonfliet, the last 

one controls. The weight or authority seem8 to be to the 

effect that In case of coniliet between the genwral and 

specie1 provisions 0r a stetute, th* apealal one shall 

prevnll. And even when e statute expresses a general intentlon end likewise 6 plrtlcular intention lnoompatlble 

\ath it, the particular fntentlon may be deemed an eroeption to the general one. See Hwlem vs. bells Fargo k Corapaay ExpreQs# 177 s. u:. 134. 

Section 3 OS Rouse Bill #688, atate8, In part: 

*All further improvementa of said State Blghway Systcn; shall be xsde under the exclusive and 

direct control of the StatW Highway Department, 

and tith np roprlotlons medw by the Legislature 

out or the 8 tnte Eighway Pund. lfo further lriproverrent or.sa,id system shall be made with the 

cid of or with any money furnished by the countlea 

except where the aoqulslt~on or rights-of-way 

which nay be rurnlshed by the oountles, their 

subdivisiona, or def~iaed road Uistrfots.” 

St is'obvious that paragraph 3 of wubeeotlon (a) of 

Se&ion 6 is in confliotwfth thw'provfsion above quoted, but 

by the very languagw~oi this paragraph, the Legislature ha8 

attempted to mike this provision an exowptioa, suah lamgmage 

being - "In*a$dipon to endregardle?e or other provialonr 

or this Act wrhleh, in our opinion, brings t&da within 

the purview of the'holding in the oaae of Holrord va. PatterSO~, a40 s. W. 341, whichwas atflrmwd in 257 S. w. 213, Marein the oourt stated that "when a statute firat expresaea a 

general intwnt.snU arterwards an fnoonsiatent partleular intent, the latter will be taken as an wroeption to the rormer 

and both will stand." 

In view of the autborltfsa quoted above, which, when 

read in connection with the language wmploywd in the Act, we 

reaeh the conolusion that your seoond question must be ana- 

~tipd in the errirxatfve, that is, that euoh bonda when 

issued shall be elLgiblo for pertlolpstion in the primery 
Honorable Wrphy Cole, page #6 

benerlte 0r the one-cent gasoline tar es provided in 

House Bill &88. 

Yours very truly 

ATTOPSIX CS?ZRAL OF TEXAS 

%&zs- ~.+------ 

Clarence 3%. Crone 

Assistant 

cm-e