### 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 anAct commonly known as the Harrison County Road andBridge Law and Is anAct relating to the establishment of amore efficient road system for Harrison County. Sections 9and 14of said Act provide as follows:

“Sec. 9. The Commissioners Court of Harrison County, Texas, shall have authority to purchase all machinery, equipment, supplies, andmaterials necessary, requisite and/or convenient to lay out, construct, repair, andmaintain an integrated and correlated system of all-weather local public roads tinsuch county, with gravel or other all-weather surface, and to makepayment therefor out of the general road andbridge fund. Before any such machinery, equipment, supplies, andmaterials are purchased under the provisions of this section, the commissioners court shall order the county engineerHonorable 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, andmaterials ordered by the commlssloners court for use In the laying out, opening, widening, constructing, draining, grading, repairing, andmaintenance 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 adally report, In triplicate, which shall showthe amount of supplies and materials used andwhere the samewere 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 showwhich project such supplies andmaterials are charged to and shall so allocate the expenditures madeon each pro ect as to showthe cost thereof.” (Emphasis added. 3

“Seto14. The county engineer Is empowered and authorized to purchase, rent, lease, or hire all necessary machinery, Implements, tools, labor, andmaterials 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 At c
. 11purchases made, for the use of the road andbridge department of said county, In an amount In excess of $500, shall be made onthe basis of competitive bids, except as maybe otherwise provided by order of the commissioners court. Purchases of under $500, required for the efficient operation of the road andbridge department, shall be madeby 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. Nopurchase’shall be made’for the benefit of the road andbridge department for which funds are not provided ,lnthe 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 

### 3of 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 andBridge Law. The Engineer shall be the sole and exclusive ps chasing agent. Anypurchase madewlthout his authorization shall be void. In the event of apurchase 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 darenecessary for the operation of the Road andBridge 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)

. 14of the Road andBridge
Construing the provisions of Sections 9and 14 of House Bill 

### 1346above quoted together, wenote that the ultimate power for the purchase of machinery, equipment, supplies andmaterials necessary requisite and/or convenient to lay out, construct, repair andmaintain 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, nowrit) Llmestone Y Knox, 234 S.W. 131 (Tex.Clv.App. 1921, howrit) 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 maysubsequently ratify; andwhere a county receives benefits under a contract not made In conformity with the Constitution or statute of the State, the county will be held liableHonorable Charles A, Allen, page 4 (M-164)

on an Implied contract for the reasonable value.of the benefits which ttie county mayhave received. Rbdners vs. CountV of Tavlor. .W.2d 794 (Tex.Clv.ADDLl963, no- %?61 SW~i?d483 E&h, 

### al,

iex. 

### 575,

‘?‘ex;707; 27S;W. 258 Tex. 

### 234;24S.W. 341, 78 S.W.2d 929 560 (Tex.Clv.ADD. Cameron County vs. of San’Anton10 vs.

rror dlsm.). tiouniy_, 

### 118Si’:2d g30-(Tex.&v.App. 193cII

This ruling ls,succlnctly summarized In Rodger$ vs. County of Taylor, supra, as follows:

“Wehave 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&ebound 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., 

### 61S.W.2d 483.

“If the Commlsslonere’ Court did not have authority’ to pay Rod,gere,’ bill under the above statute, wehold that the Commissioners1 Court was authorized to pay Rodgers’ ‘blll~ under &n Implied contract. In Sluder v. City of San Antonio, Tex.Com.App., 2S.W.2d 

### 841,the court said ‘Since the decision In the IPrenoh’Case. fity of SanAntonio v. French, 80Tex. 575, T6S.W. 4407 our courts have uniformly announced the doctrliGe that where a county or munlclPallty receives benefits under a contract, illega because not madeIn 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 mayhave received. In other words, while such contracts are void, and no recovery Is permitted thereon, our courts hold that commonhonesty and fair dealing require that acounty or municipality should not be permitted to receive the benefit of money, property, or services, without paying just compensation therefor. Under such circumstances, aprivate corporation would clearly be liable under an Implied

-771..

Honorable Charles A. Allen, page 

### 5 (M-164)

contract. There can be no sound reason whythe same obligation to dojustice should not rest upon amunicipal corporation.'"
In Leon County vs. Vann, supra, the county wasnot permitted to assert awant of authority where the Commissioners Court had ratified the contract madeby the agent, the court stating:

In view of the foregoing authorities, you are advised the Commissioners Court of Harrison County mayratify or that approve apurchase 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 wasmadeby aperson other than the county engineer. 11

. . .The reasonable intendment from this averment is that Leon county recognized and ratified the contract which hadbeen madeon 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 awant of authority In the agents whopurported 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 apurchase 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 wasmadeby aperson other than the county engineer.
very truly,

Prepared by John Reeves Assistant Attorney GeneralHonorable Charles A. Allen, page 

### 6 (M-164)

APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman W.V. Geppert Brandon Blckett Harold Kennedy Roger Tyler
A. J. CARUBBI,JR. Staff Legal Assistant