R-144 

XAS 

March 26, 1947 

Hoa. laoneg E. Lindsey Opinion No. V-104 

County Attorney 

Upshur County 

Gilmer 9 Texas 

Re : Authority of just ice 

court and municipal 

court in State Highway 

law violations within 

corporate limits of 

Dear Mrlr. Lindsey: municlpalltg, 

Your request for an 

regarding the above-captioned 

to the writer for reply, We quote from your request 

opinion OS this department, 

subject, has been referred 

in 

part as follows : 

“I would like an Interpretation of Article 

827a, Section 12 of the Penal Code, which has 

to do with stop signs placed at junctions of 

main traveled highways D 

“My s cific case is that within the tit 

limits of r ilmer, Texas, State Highway Ro. 15$ 

and U. 9 O Highway MO, 271 cross at right angles. 

The junction is one block off the town square. 

?he State Highway Department has placed 

stop signs against traffic of both higbvays. 

“The question Is, ‘may violators of these 

stop signs be proceeded against In justice court 

or must they be proceeded against in city court?’ 

“The city of Gilmer is Fncarporated and 

has a po ulatlon of approximately thirty-five 

hundred P 3500) o The State Highway Department 

constructed these highways to the town square, 

and I understand does the maintenance on them. 

“At the time one of these highways was 

constructed the City and the Highway Department entered into a contract whereby the 

Department agreed to construct said highway, 
. 

.’ 

. 

‘. 

.‘, 

,,: ” 

Ron. LoOwy, R. Lindsey, Page 2, 

In this contraot there is a 

ing: 

‘It Is understood and 

the parties hereto that the 

V-104 

provision readagreed between 

city, by virtue 

_ . . of the provisions of its charr;er ana cne 

laws of the State of Texas, has exclusive 

control of and jurlsdlatlon of all streets 

and public ways within the Incorporated 

limits of said city, and the city has reqwsted and has consented to the construction of the street project hereinabove named, 

and the State, in the construotlon of the 

above-n-d street project, dose so at the 

l 

,g: 

o-1 lnstanaa and request of the city. 

loeatlon, grade8 and mmnbr of the congggyg&g&gg: :: lpgy:;:a:y):* 

thereof 0 The State Highway Departmat of 

the State of Texas acts aa tha agent of the 

alty 

jsct 

& the construction of the street prothersof. 1” 

&tlcle 62, Texas Code of Crldoril Procsdti, “A corporation court in each incorporated 

city, tovn or village of this state shall 

hare urisdiction within the corporate limits 

of al J arm-1 cases arising under the ordi- 

~naal) of such olt7, town or village, and 

#hall have concurrent jurisdiction with any 

jurtlce of the peace in any precinct in vhidh 

88ld elty, town or village is situated, in all 

erlJBSAa1 cases arising under the criminal laws 

of this State, In which punishment is by fine 

only, and where the maximum of such f fne may 

not exceed two hundred ($200.00) dollars, and 

arising vlthia such aorporate limits 0 ’ 

SeatIon 118, Volume 12, Texas Jurisprudence, 

ye: 396, after quoting the above statute reads as fol2 “This provlsioa expressly gives corporation aourta authority and jurisdiction to try 

offense8 arising out of violation of muuiclpal ordinances, and also to try offenses arising under the general penal laws of the 

State,, vithln the limits prescribed. (Cltlng numroua authorities) D 
Hon. Mooney E. Lindsey, Page 3, v-104 

“under the amendment to the Coostitution giving the Leglelature power to leetablish such other courts as it may &aem neweesary) and prescribe the jurisdlctloa an& erganlzatlon thereof c y and to ‘conform the juriadiction of the district and other iaferlor 

courts thereto, p (Constitution, Article 5, 

Section 1) the Legislature, has power to give 

corporation courts jurlsdistioa to try persons for offenses against state lava. (Oiting numerous authorities) O In prose cut ion 

for offenses of this charrater, the carporat ion courts have jurisdiction concurzwatly 

with auy justice of the peace in alcly @aclnct in vhich the city is situated, In all 

cases where the maximum fine does not exceed 

two hundred ($200.00) dollars, If the offense 

has been camltted within the city limits; 

but the courts may not be given juriaW.ctlon to try nls,demeanor offenses punishable 

by imprleonnmt, at least cities qmmtlug 

under the homa rule provision of the Cctlatitutioa; nor may thsg Be olothed with eXeY.usive jurisdiction over infractions of state 

law, to the exclusion of gustioe courts, 

or other cowte created- by the Conatitution.n 

It is therefore the ruling of this department, 

that violators of State Highway lavs within the cor)crate 

limits of tha City of Gilmar sight be prosecute@ in either the justice court of your county, or the nu~lci~l 

court of the City of Gilmsr when the penalty shall not 

exceed two hundred ($2OO.OOj doll~s and no jail eentenoe is provided by statute, 

The .corporatlon court of the Oity of 

Gllmer has conaurrent jurisdlut ion. with the 

just@8 courts of Upshur douutg, of violations of State Bigbvag laws vithin the 

corporate limits of the city, when the penalty shall uot exceed two hundred ($20@.@0) 

dollars and no jail sentence is provided by 

statute. (Article 62, C. C. ?a1 
Treeti~ 

tionnairea, w ew 

that the fonsolng aarwra reur emaYaws wrg tcnlys