OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorablo u. A. D8Vl8 

stae Regirtru 

Tex~r State Board of Health 

Audln, Tour 

You have repuerted rtment 8 revisv OS 

our oplnlon HO. o- ructlon 81 to how 

to prooeed in the ier of birth 

reoordr of perron tating that in 

the part you hav i08 when ordered 

to do 80 br 8 QO 

8 determination 

aenelderqd iheeqw 

W%8diOtiOll 

477, V.rtiOll’8 Revi8ed 

8aUa964l O? 8 cectlflcd 

ato vhez'eln l ohlld or an 

‘Udlb88 8UOh oertified 

tent jUri8diOtiOn." 

Heither AFti prOV18iOn Oi th0 OOLk8ti- 

.Oc;rl’t 8peOif9.0 jlU?i8diOaertlfled OOpie8, but UUder Seotion 8 of Artlole V OS the ConrtitutIon of Texa8, oh&oh 

provibc8 that the dirtriot oourt *rh811 h4ve gener81 origin81 

jurisiriation over all oau8e8 OS a&ion vhatever for vhloh a 

remedy or jUrl8diotlOn 18 not provided by l&Y Or thi8 oOn8titutlon, ' Ye held that the di8triCt court ha8 jWd8diotiOn to 

Order the 188umoe of ruoh oertitled OOp1e8. 
Honorable U. A. Davlr, p8ge 2 

&I XO‘our 1Ott.r WJUO8ting thi8 OpilliOll YOU point 

out that, vherear the above montloned prohibition l geln8t 

Uu iaruanoe of oertlfled oopler of birth reoordr of 110 

legltlu8te8, vhioh va8 oont8lned la the or1 laal Vital Stati&i08 AOt Of 1927, i8 8till r eta ined, Jet f l t.lí uPrIldllWnt8 

authorire the judge of the probate oourt to aoorpt and approve the reoord of q btith or death not p~vlousl~ reglr ta a d, and l uthorlae regi8trOr8 to 188u8 oeatgled OOpib8 

of birth or death oortliloatea, vlthout in either oa8e making a d&8tinotlon botveen IrgitWte 8nd lllegltlmate birth. 

But thi8 do.8 not maan that th8 prohibitory rovirion ha8 

beu, repealed by $nplloatton., fho rule 18 8 P ated thou in 

39 Texor Jurlrprudenoe, PU!-241 

'In oa80 of ocmfllat brtveen a genrer& ;g 

vision snd a 8peolal provirlon deal 

8W rubjet?&, the i0PB.l' i8 Or liBitl d by the bttorj and m8 18 80 vhether th. 

provi8ion8 in quertion are oontalnod in the 

88~ oat or Lo dIffereat enaotmenttl. In other 

vord8, vh8n a 8tatute make8 a gen8ral provl8100 &~@lltl~ iOr 4u 08808 and a 8p8Oia1 

provlrlon ror a portioular oa80 or olarr, the 

Sormw ~alld8 and the latter prevail8 in so Sar 

l 8 the ~tiOl&P 0880 OF 0188r 18 oonmm%ed. 

& 8u8h OirOUlUt8Me8, th0 8JlOOia1 pFOVi8iOll 

or rtatuta 18 regarded ai though it were 8n l xoeption or provlrh, rmovlrlg 8OBetw f'rOl8 

the operation of the generril lav.' 

Smtlon 16 OS Artlolq~!V of the Texar Qoxutitutlon 

preroriber the oozutitutlonal jurl8dlotlon of the oountl o;m&, 

lnoludlng 'the general jurlrdlotlon OS a Probate Court. 

YO knov or.no ,lai bringing the irruame of a oartiiled oopror a birth oertlrl8ate, 0r it88ii, viathin th8 gonrral jUri8- 

dlotlon OS a probate aourt. 

Seotlon 22 of Artlole V of the Conrtitutlon deoluer: 

'The ~girlatum 8hall have paver, by looal 

or gerural lav, to lnorea8o, diaieirh or ohangr 

the 01~11 and orimlnal jurlrdlotlon oi oountr 

C!OWt8j and in Oa8e8 Or 0117 8uOh ohange Of jurl8diotlon, the Leglrlatwe l hall al80 oonform 

the jurl8dlotlcm of the other 80urt8 to ru8h 

ohonge.g f, .'., a. 
Honorable Y. A. DIvir, page 3 

UIldOr thi8 OOIi8titUtiOAal &3POViliM, 4 8t4tUtO Omierring original jurlrdiotlon on oounty oourtr of Deaf Smith 

County in 01~11 08808 vhero the amount in aontroverry 988 

r 

00.00 op 1088 war held oon8tltutlonal. Camplay v. Bwmley, 

COBB. App.) 55 8. V. (26) 810, 

In the ea8e of Jon08 v. Ni880ur1=Xan8*8-%ua8 Rallroad Compeny of Texa8, 14 S. Y. (2d) 357, the Boll48 Oourt 

Of oiYii 4peal8 84idl 

“ktiole 1956 (1771 

read8 I ‘Subjeot to the LBI 

(1169), R. s. 1925, 

tation rtatad in 

thl8 idaapter (;lurlrdlotional limltatlon), the 

OOunty OOwt 18 authorlsed t0 hen? and determine 

any o&we vhloh 18 oognirable b y aourtl, l lthar 

or l&v or equity, and to pant any relldr uhioh 

y2Bdjbo ranted br raid OOWt8, or olther of 

. 

.It tollov8 therefore that oounty oourtr 

ruy l xerolre the power of both i&v ml equity 

oourtr in the trial Of any oawo over vhloh 

they are given jurlrdiotlon, inoludin~, 0r 

00ur80, a oondemuotion prooeeding, Yhloh 18 to 

bo tried and determIned 88 8ny other oivll 

oawo . " 

But it 18 noted that in both of the oarer above 

olted, the oounty oourt had jqi8diOtion of the 8UbjeOt matter of the oau8e involved by rea8on of a 8peolflo oonrtltutlonal or itatutory enaotment. The oounty oourt, along with 

the jwtloo wurt, ha8 but llmfted jUri8diotion in thil 

State. Jaoo v. W. A. Rarb Coinpan , 

Elpp Ocmpany v. Anglln, 270 S. l?. B 

269 8. N. 1089i R. 0. 

93.. And we do not believe 

that the provi8lon8 oi Artlole 1956, 8u 

r 

a, are applloable 

to any e&we over vhloh the oountp oour ir not given jur18diotlon by 8&ieoiiiO rtatutory or OOli8titUtiO-1 provl8lon8. 

It 18 therefore our OplDAon that the oounty oourt 

18 not a oourt oi ooapetont juvl8dlotlon to order the lrruanon of a oertlfled aopy oi a birth orrtlfloate ot ati 119 

legitlmato 

r 

r8on, and heme, that the State Regirtrar 18 

vlthout aUt Ority t0 i88Ue 8Uah oortlfled Copy upon the or- 

- der OS thr oounty oourt. 

Yours very truly