Honorable I. Predeoki

County Auditor; GalvestonCounty Galveston,Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNo. O-7092 Re: May time warrants be issued for the purpose of erecting
an arena and pavilion 

### for cattle exhibitiona?

Xc acknowledgereceipt of your oplni~on request of recent date, and quote from your letter as follows:

"ReferenceIs made to the above numbered opinion 

### in connectionwith 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 approvedAugust' Tth, 1945, by the firstAssistant 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 ,notbe 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'tome, it was held that time warrants Par the construotion of a live- -stockexhlbitionbuilding could not legallybe lasued.

"Afterreceiving the opinions referred to, I transmitted to County Judge TheodoreR. Robinson of Wlvejton Couilty'the Information,and he has informed. me that he went.

tom Austin and oonsultedwith your department

### a8 to the method of paying for the livestockbuilding'structures that were to be erected, and that you advised him time warrants could begissued for this purpose.Honorable I. Predeckl, page 2 (O-7092)

"KPndlyrender me your opinion In connection with the issuance of tFme warrants for this purpose."

Our opinionNumber o-2461, addressed to the County Attorney.ofEl Paso County and dated June 27, 1940, was evidently sent to you by mistake. ~The Fdentlcal question involved Ftithat opihi'on Vas passed on by the 21 Paso Court-of CivilAppeals'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 ofVernon% 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, livestockand mineral products, and such other products as are of Interest to the community. In connection therewith. such counties may also establish and maintainmuseums, including the erection of the,necesaargbuildings and ,other Fmprovementa,

-- In their own counties or 1ZXn~er county **or** cFty~in.theUnited States, where fairs or expositiona are being held.

%?a. 2. The Commlaaioners'C'ourtsof the respe'ctive,aountLes or the CommPssionerstCourts of several counties

### q ay'cooperate wlth each other and - participate with local interests in providing-for the creation-

of such buildings and other improvementsas may be neoessary to accomplish the puPposerentioned In'Section 1, of this Act and for the assembling, ~srecting,and maintaining of such hoi-tiaultural and agricultural, livestockand mineral 'exhibits, and the expenses incident thereto..."

The El Paso Court held tha,t under this statuteauthorizing a county to provide for annual exhlbitlon of hortioultural and agriculturalproducts,but not expressly conferringpower to issue time'warrants to pay for improvements constructed for such purpose, a.county had "impliedpower" to issue time warrants payable over a period of years for improvements on livestock and a@icultural exhibitionbuildinga. 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.249SW.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 corporationsare invested by impllcat.ion with the power to contract on the general credit' of the city with respect to such improvementsas they are authorized to make.' The section we have referred to above -inRulingCase 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 followingproposition: 'Therule is well established thatmunFcipal'corporations are invested at least with an implied- or incidental power to contracton the general credit of the city wlth respect to such improvementsas they are authorized by law t'o make.' Among the
numerous cases cited by Judge Sharp in support of the proposition Is the case ofLasater 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 conferredby law."

Youare advised/therefore, It is the. opinion of'this Department that Galveston County, subject to the present restrictions imposedby 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/ Carlo8Ashlhy1946 Assistant

FIRST ASSISTART ATTORNEY EiENERAL

APPROVED OPIHION COPlIEIITTRR BY /s/BWB CHAIRMAM