OF AS 

September 11, 1951 

Hon. D. Richard Voges Opinion No. V-1278 

County Attorney 

Wilson county Be: Authority of Wilson 

Bloresville, Texas ,County to issue bonds 

to construct a building 

to house the County 

Dear Mr. Voges: 

1~ 

Agents, the C.ounty gome 

Demonstration Agent, 

the Production Marketing Administratisn office and the like. 

Your request for an opinion relates to 

the authority of a county of less than 20,000 population to co$struct a building to be used by the 

County Agent, the County Home Demonstration Agent, 

t,he Soil Congervation Office, and the Production 

and Marketing Atiinistration by the issuance of 

county~wide bonds. If bonds may be issued for such 

a purpose, you also wish to know if a petition is 

required and what is the maximum tax rate that the 

county may fix in order to retire the bona issue. 

We believe the question yoti resent is 

answered by Att’y Gen. Op O-7036 (19467, wherein 

it was stated: 

“The courts of thia State have repeatedly held that a county oanhot issue 

bonds unless such power is expressly conferred by law. such is the established 

doctriqe in this State, and has been from 

an early time. It was affirms&in the 

original appeal from San Patric 

v. YcCl@ne, 44 Tex. 392, ana re terated in 

l 

0 County 

Robison.v. Breedlove, 61 Tex. 3,6; also 

in Lasater v. Lopez, 217 S.W. 373, 110 Tex. 

179." 

1) 0 . e 

“We have failed to find a statute in 

this State expressly authorizing a county 
. ‘. 

Hon. D. Richard Voges, page 2 (V-1278) 

to colfstruct the type building mentioned 

in yoqr request. Therefqre, it is the 

opiniqn of this Departmeqt, based on the 

foregding decisions of the courts of this 

State; that a county 606s not have the 

autholrity to issue . . . bonds for the 

purpose of constructing an agricultural 

building in which to house the oounty 

agent and the A.A.A. off$ces.* 

Article 2370(a), V.C,S. (H,B. 382, Acts 

51st Leg. 1949, ch. 60, p. loo), authorizes.the issuance of.negotiable bonds .for the purchase, construction, or otherwise acquiring of additional office space if the courthouse is not adequate to 

properly house all county offices. We need not aetide whether any or all of the offices named by you 

are “county offices” within the meaning of this 

statute; since it expired by its own terms on Sept. 

1, 1951, at the latest. 

You also ask whether these offices could 

be considered experiment stations so as to authorize the county to issue~bonas under the authority 

granted by Artiale 163a, Y.C.S. The definition of 

an experiment station is a station established “for 

the purpose of making experiments and conducting investigations in the planting and growing of agricultural and horticultural crops and soils, and the 

breeding, feeding and fattening of livestock for 

slaughter.” Att’y Oan. Op. o-7483 (1946). We do not 

believe that @ building for any of the named offices 

can qualify as an “experiment stationR under this 

definition; therefore, Article 163a, V.C.S., has no 

application. 

This office, fJllowiug the decisions of the 

courts ha& repeatedly held that:,,the commissioners* 

court is a court of limited jurisdiction and has only 

such powers as are conferred upon it, whether by express teds or by necessary implication by the statutes and-Constitution of this State. Childress County 

V. State; 127 Tex. 343, 92 S.W. ?a, loll .(1936) V 

173 S.W. 508 (Tex. Civ. Apb.-&5 

. Hall, 280 S.W. 289 (Tex. civ. 

/ App. 1925); 11 032, Counties Sec. 95, 20 C. 

J.S. 1006, Counties, SiE. 174. 
.’ . 

Hon. Richard D. Voges, page 3 (V-1278) 

In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion 

that Wilson County is not authorized to issue bonds 

to construct buildings for the County Agent, County 

Home Demonstrtition Agent, the Soil Conservation Office 

and the Productioq and Marketing Administration. 

There is no authority for Wilson 

County to construot a building by the 

issuance of bonds for the purpose of 

housing the County Agent, the County 

Home Demonstration Agent, the Soil Conservation Office, and the Proauction 

and Marketing Administration. 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr, 

County Affairs Division 

Jesse P. Luton, Jr. 

Reviewing Assistant 

Everett Hutchinson 

Executive Assistant 

BW:awo 

Yours very truly 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

ByGa 

Burnell Waldrep 

Assistant