. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12548 

Austin, TX. 78711. 2548 

51214752501 

Telex 910/874-1387 

Teleconler 512/475G?SS 

714 Jackson, Suite 7W 

Dallas, TX. 75202-4508 

2141742-9944 

4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

9151533-3484 

1001 Texas. Suite 700 

Houston, TX. 77002-3111 

713l2255896 

808 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479 

9081747-5238 

4909 N. Tenth, Suite S 

,&Allen, TX. 78501~1895 

512h382.4547 

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 

5121225.4191 

A” Equal OPPOrtUnitYi 

Affirmative Actlon EmPlOW 

The Attorney General of Texas 

Declmber 2. 1985 

Honorable Mike Dr:Lscoll 

Harris County Attorney 

1001 Preston, Suixe 634 

Houston, Texas "7002 

Opinion No. .JM-387 

Re: Constitutionality of House Bill 

No. 2370, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 

568, at 4427. which applies to 

counties and areas of counties outside the boundaries of cities of 1.5 

million or more residents 

Dear Mr. Driscoll: 

You have inquired whether chapter 568 of the Sixty-ninth Legislature, Acts 1985, 6'9th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427, which enacted article 

974a-3, V.T.C.S., violates article III. section 35 of the Texas 

Constitution. Thltt section provides es follows: 

No bill, (except general appropriation bills, 

which 'my embrace the various subjects and 

accountlr, for and on account of which moneys are 

appropriated) shall contain more than ona subject, 

which shall be expressed in its title. But if any 

subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall 

not be expressed in the title, such act shall be 

void oa:Ly as to so much thereof, as shall not be 

so expmssed. 

Tex. Const. art. 1'11, $35. The Interpretive Comencary fo!lowlng the 

above quoted provxioa states, in part, as follows: 

The 'pnpose of the title-subject provision is 

threefold: First, it is designed to prevent 

log-rol!.ing legislation, i.e., to prevent the 

writing of several subjectshaving no connection 

with each other in one bill for the purpose of 

combining various interests in support of the 

whole. Second, it prevents surprise or fraud upon -- 

legislators by means of provisions in bills of 

which thme titles give no intimation, and which 

might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and 

unintent:icmally adopted. w, it permits the 

people ‘to be fairly apprised of the subjects of 

legislation under consideration, so that they may 

p. 1771 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-387) 

have an opportunity of being heard, if they so 

desire. 

Tax. Coast. art. III, $35, interp. commentary (Vernon 1984). 

While it is well-settled that "the quoted provision . . , is 

mandatory ," Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Independent 

School District, 261 S.W. 1J9. 490 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1924, 

writ ref'd), 

[i]t is also wall settled that the caption of an 

act should be lS,erally construed so aa to uphold 

its validity if att: all possible. Gulf Ins. Co. v. 

Jamas (supsa); :$e v. State, 163 Tax. 89, 352 

S.W.2d 724 (19621. It has also been held that, 

'none of ths pr&isions of a statute should b; 

regarded as uncmstitutional where they relate, 

directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have 

mutual connecticn, and are cot foreign to the 

subject. expressed in the title.' Stone V. Brown, 

54 Tex. 330. 

C. Hayman Construction CcEpany v. American Indemnity Conpan& 471 

S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tax. 19711. 

The title of the questioned enactment reads as follows: 

relating to the tubmission and approval of certain 

development plattl in cities of 1,500,OOO residents 

or more; providirtS; a penalty. 

V.T.C.S. art. 974a-3, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427 (title to 

H.B. No. 2370). You challnlge this title's adequacy because it "does 

not refer to cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction. . . .II The text 

of the statute does refer XC cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction. 

00 the basis of the at.thorities cited above, we conclude that the 

subject of chapter 568 is adequately expressed vithin its title. The 

title does not, as you seem to suggest, restrict its applicability to 

the limits of a city's nornal governance, but rather merely describes 

the subject as being the :iiling of plats 2 certain cities. Hence, 

the title's sufficiency is not defeated by the maxim that mention of 

one thing excludes another which caused the invalidation of the act at 

issue in Sutherland, wb Since extraterritorial jurisdiction is 

inextricably related to plztting of subdivisions in cities, see, e.g., 

V.T.C.S. arts. 970a, 974a, the title of chapter 568 is covered by the 

following standard as statc:d in the Hayman case: 

Our courts have upheld the validity of statutes 

which state in general terms a subject within the 

body of the act which is germane to the general 

p. 1772 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - :?sge 3 (JM-387) 

subject stated in the title of the act. Doeppenschmidt V. I. & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tsx. 532, 101 

S.W. 1080 (190iT; Consolidated Underwriters v. 

Kirby Lumber Co::, Tex. Corn. App., 267 S.W. 703 

(opinion adopted 1943); Central Education Agency 

V. Ind. School Dist. of El Paso, 152 Tsx. 56, 254 

S.W.2d 357 (1953.r. 

C. Hayman Construction Ctmlpany V. American Indemnity Company, 471 

S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. 1971:1.. 

SUMMARY 

The title of chapter 568, Acts 1985, 69th Leg.; 

ch. 568, is not violative of section 35 of article 

III of the Texas Constitution. 

Very truly your , L-l 4 ikJx& 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK HIGHTOWER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attonwy General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Comittw 

Prepared by Colin J. Carl 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Tony Guillory 

Jim Moellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

Sarah Woelk 

p. 1773