Honorable I. Predeoki 

County Auditor; Galveston County 

Galveston, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-7092 

Re: May time warrants be issued 

for the purpose of erecting 

an arena and pavilion for 

cattle exhibitiona? 

Xc acknowledge receipt of your oplni~on request of 

recent date, and quote from your letter as follows: 

"Reference Is made to the above numbered 

opinion in connection with expenditure of County 

funds for the purpose stated, and.whiah It was 

he1d.U the opinion that I received from you, 

rendered by Honorable J. A. Rllis, Assistant 

Attorney General, and approved August' Tth, 1945, 

by the first Assistant Attorney General that the 

funds in the County Park Fund whioh had been 

budgeted for the p.urpose of erecting an arena and 

pavilion for cattle exhibitions, could ,not be used 

for that purpose. 

"In Opinion Ro. O-2461 addressed to the County 

Attorney of El Paso County and approved on June 27th, 

190, a copy of which was-sent'to me, it was held 

that time warrants Par the construotion of a live- 

-stock exhlbition building could not legally be 

lasued. 

"After receiving the opinions referred to, I 

transmitted to County Judge Theodore R. Robinson 

of Wlvejton Couilty'the Information, and he has informed. me that he went. tom Austin and oonsulted with 

your department a8 to the method of paying for the 

livestock building' structures that were to be erected, 

and that you advised him time warrants could beg issued 

for this purpose. 
Honorable I. Predeckl, page 2 (O-7092) 

"KPndly render me your opinion In connection 

with the issuance of tFme warrants for this purpose." 

Our opinion Number o-2461, addressed to the County 

Attorney.of El Paso County and dated June 27, 1940, was evidently sent to you by mistake. ~The Fdentlcal question involved Fti that opihi'on Vas passed on by the 21 Paso Court- of 

Civil Appeals' on December 12, 1940, in the case of Adams et' 

al v. McGill-et al,' 146 S. W. (2d) 332~ (writ. of error refused'). 

ThLsDepartment Intervened Fn that case on behalf Of the State 

of Texas. 

Article 2372d of Vernon% Annotated Civil Statutes, 

reads in part as follows:, 

"Section 1. All counties in the State acting 

bv and through their reaoective. Commissioners' Courts 

m&provide &or annual exhibits ~~horticultural and 

agrlculturalyoducts, livestock and mineral products, 

and such other products as are of Interest to the 

community. In connection therewith. such counties 

may also establish and maintain museums, including 

the erection of the,necesaarg buildings and ,other 

Fmprovementa, 

-- 

In their own counties or 1ZXn~er 

county or cFty~in.the United States, where fairs or 

expositiona are being held. 

%?a. 2. The Commlaaioners' C'ourts of the respe'ctive,aountLes or the CommPssionerst Courts of 

several counties q ay'cooperate wlth each other and - 

participate with local interests in providing-for the 

creation- of such buildings and other improvements as 

may be neoessary to accomplish the puPpose rentioned 

In' Section 1, of this Act and for the assembling, 

~srecting, and maintaining of such hoi-tiaultural and 

agricultural, livestock and mineral 'exhibits, and 

the expenses incident thereto..." 

The El Paso Court held tha,t under this statute authorizing a county to provide for annual exhlbitlon of hortioultural 

and agricultural products, but not expressly conferring power to 

issue time'warrants to pay for improvements constructed for such 

purpose, a. county had "implied power" to issue time warrants 

payable over a period of years for improvements on livestock and 

a@icultural exhibition buildinga. We quote from the opinion of 

the court, as follows: 
Honorable I. Predecki, page 3 (O-7092) 

"In the case of Brldgers v. City of Lampaaas, 

Tex.Civ.App.249 SW.l083,1084, writ of error refused, 

this distinotion is drawn with great clarity. Then 

opinion is by that great jurist, Judge Key. In the 

opinion this proposition, taken ~from appellant's 

brief', was approved: 'It is generally conceded. and 

will established that q unlolpal corporations are invested by impllcat.ion with the power to contract on 

the general credit' of the city with respect to such 

improvements as they are authorized to make.' The 

section we have referred to above -inRuling Case Law 

was quoted from with approval Fn the course of'the 

opinion. The same section is cited In the case of 

Clark v. W. L. Pearson & Cog., 121 Tex. 34, 39 S.W. 

2d 27, 31, as sustaining the following proposition: 

'The rule is well established that munFcipal'corporations are invested at least with an implied- or 

incidental power to contract on the general credit 

of the city wlth respect to such improvements as 

they are authorized by law t'o make.' Among the 

numerous cases cited by Judge Sharp in support of 

the proposition Is the case of Lasater v. Lopez, 

110 Tex. 179, 189, 217 S. W. 373. 

"It is-true that-the foregoing two Texas cases 

we have. cited and briefly'dlscussed Involve the power 

of cities. The case of Lasater v. Lopez, supra, cited 

by Judge Sharp, involves a county. But we see no valid 

reason why the reasoning doeb not apply to the action 

of a' county acting within the orblt of its authority 

conferred by law." 

Youare advised/therefore, It is the. opinion of' this 

Department that Galveston County, subject to the present restrictions imposed by the Constitution and general 1aws;haa 

the power to issue' time warrants in payment for improvements 

expressly authorized, to'-wit: f or the purpose of erecting an arena 

and pavilion for cattle exhibitions ., provided that the applicable 

regulations relating to the issuance of such warrants are observed. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORRRY QERRRALOP TEXAS 

By: /s/ Glaud 0. Boothman 

:;B&v$&RB 21 

Claud 0. Bobtbman 

/a/ Carlo8 Ashlhy 

1946 Assistant 

FIRST ASSISTART ATTORNEY EiENERAL 

APPROVED OPIHION COPlIEIITTRR 

BY /s/BWB CHAIRMAM