THE ATNBRNEY GENERAL 

OF ?rExAs 

Honorable Charles A. Allen Opinion No. M- 164 

Criminal District Attorney 

Harrison County Re: Authority of the Commissioners 

Marshall, Texas Court ta ratify or approve a 

purchase of equipment, supplies 

or materials purchased by any 

other person other than the 

county engineer under facts 

Dear Mr. Allen: submltted. 

Your request for an opinion on the above subject matter 

poses the following question: 

‘Can the Commissioners Court of Harrison 

County, Texas ratify or approve a purchase of 

equipment, supplies or material purchased by 

any other person other than the County Engineer?” 

You state In your request that the voters of Harrison 

County pursuant to the provisions of Section 31 of House Bill 1346, 

Acts 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967, Chapter 778, Page 

2076, adopted the provisions of said Act. House Bill 1346 is 

an Act commonly known as the Harrison County Road and Bridge Law 

and Is an Act relating to the establishment of a more efficient 

road system for Harrison County. Sections 9 and 14 of said Act 

provide as follows: 

“Sec. 9. The Commissioners Court of Harrison 

County, Texas, shall have authority to purchase all 

machinery, equipment, supplies, and materials necessary, requisite and/or convenient to lay out, construct, repair, and maintain an integrated and 

correlated system of all-weather local public roads 

tin such county, with gravel or other all-weather 

surface, and to make payment therefor out of the 

general road and bridge fund. Before any such 

machinery, equipment, supplies, and materials are 

purchased under the provisions of this section, the 

commissioners court shall order the county engineer 
Honorable Charles A. Allen, page 2 (~-164) 

to prepare speclficatlons for such machinery, equlpment, supplies, or materials, and the commissioners 

court shall use such specifications as recommendations In making Its purchases. 

nor reJectIon-of all machinery, equipment, 

tbbls, supplies, and materials ordered by the commlssloners court for use In the laying out, opening, 

widening, constructing, draining, grading, repairing, 

and maintenance of the county roads, and shall receipt 

for such machinery, equipment, tools, supplies, and 

materials purchased by the county for the road and 

bridge department. 

“The county engineer shall keep a dally report, 

In triplicate, which shall show the amount of supplies 

and materials used and where the same were used, one 

copy of which shall be furnished the county auditor, 

one copy ot the commissioners court, and one copy 

shall be retained In his office; said report shall 

show which project such supplies and materials are 

charged to and shall so allocate the expenditures 

made on each pro ect as to show the cost thereof.” 

(Emphasis added. 3 

“Set o 14. The county engineer Is empowered and 

authorized to purchase, rent, lease, or hire all necessary machinery, Implements, tools, labor, and materials 

required to maintain, construct, and Improve the public 

roads of Harrison County, Texas, subject to the rules 

and regulations adopted by the commissioners court 

and the terms of this A c t . 11 purchases made, for 

the use of the road and bridge department of said 

county, In an amount In excess of $500, shall be made 

on the basis of competitive bids, except as may be 

otherwise provided by order of the commissioners court. 

Purchases of under $500, required for the efficient 

operation of the road and bridge department, shall be 

made by the county engineer under the rules and regulations adopted by the Commissioners Court of Harrison 

-169- 
Honorable Charles Ai Allen, page 3 (M-164) 

County, Texas. No purchase’shall be made’ for 

the benefit of the road and bridge department 

for which funds are not provided ,ln the current 

approved road and bridge department budget, except In the case of emergency Involving public 

safety, hsalth, and the protection of life and 

property. (Emphasis added). 

You state in your request that pursuant to Section 14 

above quoted the Commissioners Court of Harrison County adopted 

certain rules and regulations and that paragraph 3 of said rules 

and regulations reads as follows: 

“3. All purchases for the Road and Bridge 

Department shall be made In strict compliance 

with Sec. 14 of the Road and Bridge Law. The 

Engineer shall be the sole and exclusive ps 

chasing agent. Any purchase made wlthout his 

authorization shall be void. In the event of 

a purchase wlthout the authority of the Engineer, 

such person usurplng the authority of the Engineer 

shall be lndlvldually responsible to the supplier 

or other person involved. The Rnglneer shall be 

authorized to purchase materials and supplies, 

which in his judgment dare necessary for the operation of the Road and Bridge Department, but no one 

purchase shall exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), 

unless previously authorized by a contract entered 

into as required by Sec. 

Law. ” (Emphasis added ) . 

14 of the Road and Bridge 

Construing the provisions of Sections 9 and 14 of House 

Bill 1346 above quoted together, we note that the ultimate power 

for the purchase of machinery, equipment, supplies and materials 

necessary requisite and/or convenient to lay out, construct, repair 

and maintain public roads In Harrison County rests in the Commlsslonerl 

Court of Harrison County. 

While the Commissioners Court cannot bind the county by 

ratification of an Illegal contract (Cermo Mfg. Co. vs. Coleman 

C!ULUI;~,~;~& S.W. 1063 (Tex.Clv.App. lglb, no writ) Ll mestone 

Y Knox, 234 S.W. 131 (Tex.Clv.App. 1921, ho writ) 

bchlltree County vs. Hedrlck, 366 S.W.2d 866, (Tex.Clv.Appf 1963, 

error ref. n.r.e.11, it Is well settled law in this State that 

what the Commlssloners Court could have authorized In the beginning, 

the Commlssloners Court may subsequently ratify; and where a county 

receives benefits under a contract not made In conformity with the 

Constitution or statute of the State, the county will be held liable 
Honorable Charles A, Allen, page 4 (M-164) 

on an Implied contract for the reasonable value.of the benefits 

which ttie county may have received. Rbdners vs. CountV of Tavlor. 

.W.2d 794 (Tex.Clv.ADDLl963, no- 

%?61 S W~i?d 483 

E&h, al, iex. 575, 

‘?‘ex;707; 27 S;W. 258 

Tex. 234;24 S.W. 

341, 78 S.W.2d 929 

560 (Tex.Clv.ADD. 

Cameron County vs. 

of San’ Ant on10 vs. 

tiouniy_, 118 Si’:2d g30-(Tex.&v.App. 193cII rror dlsm.). 

This ruling ls,succlnctly summarized In Rodger$ vs. 

County of Taylor, supra, as follows: 

“We have concluded that the Conusisslonersl 

Court had authority to pay Rodgers’ bill’. When 

the Comlssloner8’ Court ratified the contract 

of the District Attorney, the’county w&e bound 

by such contract, ‘What the commlsslonera’ 

court could have authorized In the ba~lqnl~, 

that court could subse+ently ratify. Cameron 

County v. FOX, Tex.Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 483. 

“If the Commlsslonere’ Court did not have 

authority’ to pay Rod,gere,’ bill under the above 

statute, we hold that the Commissioners1 Court 

was authorized to pay Rodgers’ ‘blll~ under &n 

Implied contract. In Sluder v. City of San 

Antonio, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 841, the court 

said ‘Since the decision In the IPrenoh’Case. 

fity of San Antonio v. French, 80 Tex. 575, 

T6 S.W. 4407 our courts have uniformly announced 

the doctrliGe that where a county or munlcl 

P 

allty 

receives benefits under a contract, illega 

because not made In conformity with the Constitution or statute of the state, or charter 

provision of the city, It will be held liable 

on an Implied contract for the reasonable value 

of the benefits which It may have received. In 

other words, while such contracts are void, and 

no recovery Is permitted thereon, our courts hold 

that common honesty and fair dealing require that 

a county or municipality should not be permitted 

to receive the benefit of money, property, or 

services, without paying just compensation therefor. Under such circumstances, a private corporation would clearly be liable under an Implied 

-771. 
. 

Honorable Charles A. Allen, page 5 (M-164) 

contract. There can be no sound reason why the 

same obligation to do justice should not rest 

upon a municipal corporation.'" 

In Leon County vs. Vann, supra, the county was not permitted to assert a want of authority where the Commissioners Court 

had ratified the contract made by the agent, the court stating: 

In view of the foregoing authorities, you are advised 

that the Commissioners Court of Harrison County may ratify or 

approve a purchase of equipment, supplies or material purchased 

pursuant to the provisions of Houee Bill 1346, Acts 60th Leglslature, Regular Session, 1967, Chapter 778, Page 2076, even though 

such purchase was made by a person other than the county engineer. 

11 

. . .The reasonable intendment from this 

averment is that Leon county recognized and 

ratified the contract which had been made on 

Its behalf, and paid the defendant for the work 

that had been done In pursuance of its terms. 

It Is clear that, in such a case, the defendant 

should not be permitted to assert a want of 

authority In the agents who purported to act 

on behalf of the county in maklng the contract. 

Having received the benefit of the contr;ct, he 

is estopped to deny its validity. . . . 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners Court of Harrison County may 

ratify or approve a purchase of equipment, supplies, 

or material purchased pursuant to the provisions of 

House Bill 1346, Acts 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967, Chapter 778, Page 2076, even though such 

purchase was made by a person other than the county 

engineer. 

very truly, 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 
Honorable Charles A. Allen, page 6 (M-164) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman 

W. V. Geppert 

Brandon Blckett 

Harold Kennedy 

Roger Tyler 

A. J. CARUBBI, JR. 

Staff Legal Assistant