**OFFICE OF**  **THE A-ITORNEY**  **GENERAL AUSTIN**  **OF TEXAS** 

zonerable John R. Shook Crlmlnal Dlatrlot Attornsy sari Antonio, Texae
Deer sira

nty at the Aormbbs~, mrel election?

upon the above

ners* Court of 

### Berm the oon6truotlon of whlah bond6 in the thorlzsd to bs Issued the county et tha flovembar,

oh hospital, alldis such tax 8 Constitution? "(3) ?i;hat

prooeUurs i6 rmorsaary to **hake** such a tuberoular

### hoqdtml tax lsg61PW On liaroh(?9,1941, this **departmmt** mot6 you a latter regusstlnrrturthar Lnformatlon r6latlYe to the ebws ~&sefions propou&d to thi6 office Uoposrning the byildiw of a .----..A.,356

Honorable John B, Shook, page 3

tubsroular ho8pltel in 8eld C0Unty for whloh hoe?ital 

### bonde were-Toted In th6 general l leotlon in Rwcmhsr, 1940. In reply to ous 

### abora mentionad letter, onApril 5, 1941, **you** wrote w in part a6 follows~

"we aoknowledge receipt a&o of 

### your oplalon Boa 04599. I fisllsve thir opinion amwers 6atistaotorlly the question6 Ho. 3 end 3 propounded to you, end it dll not be **mOeS6al'$' to**  **80** 

### further into these Ql66tiOn6. We do dwirr, however, en opinion on &motion 80, 1; aa propounded in

### our reque6t, ths 66El6 being, 'Isthe Comaisaimsre~ Court of Berar C~ounty,

Texee,ooqelled to direct the conotruotlon ofa tuberoular hospital, for whloh bonds in the 6~6 of $;t85,OGO.G0, were euthodxed to 

### bs lseuedby the people of the Countyat the Nommber lQt0 General El6otlon.'
"For your intormtlon, this pro~~~osel to build a hospital W66 eubxltted at our Eiovcunbar Caneral Zleotlon and at thet tfae the Comi6eioner6~ Court submitted the 6ame, imowin& in their ownminds thnt therewad not any mthod by whio::they might iso tarso to support the said proposedhoep tal, f The twenty-r%vs osnt ra for county purjsose6, em provid6d by the Conatltutlon,hsrine been already l~lod and 

### allotted to Ot&et y.QO666, 1~1066 E. B. No, tit,ml&t provide tar aadftlonal tax lery for the 

### support of said hO6pital. % <a 'It Is nou ooxitendrd 

### by thepaopla aho wtrrapropo61~ the building Oi thlr horpltel that the people having voted thr ~e83,OGO.OO In bonds, it le mmdatory that the bonds be ieauad an& the hotpltalbe built evem though it

### mu& otend Idle ead be oi no beastit whatever to the altisanr of Boxer Oountyl =l'his oftlor has held, as youwill iled from our opinionwhlohwas trem+tbd to you

. _ ,7-..

-+Honcrabla John R. Shook, page 5

with a request for an opinion, that the Cmniazloners~ court does not **baV6** to 168W these bonds, but zzy use it6 di6OratiOn In regard to tho ear40 for the reaeon that to build the hoegltal would bo a useless act andwould be of no banarlt whatever to the people as the 6ama could not bo operated, 'Will you pleaaa, therefore,Clve w as speedily a8 poaalble an opinionamwaring our question Wo, l?* Chapter 5, Title 71, Vernon'6Rmotated Civil Statutee( authorizes aad axpowers the Comml6aloner6~Court or any county to eetabllsh a oounty ho6pltal end to enlarge any exiatlnehos_cltelsfor the care end treatzant of pernone suffering Srorz

any illness, ootiained In said ahaptar. eto., mbject to the provisions It Is tu=thar crotifdedin said chsgter that the C03~l~slcner6' Court shzl$ eubmlt to the voters at e epeolal or regular election the propoeltfon of lssllins

hoods for the ?ur,:ose or ?steblishln6 or enk~~in:: such hos;ltall, and whenever any such pro?osltlon shall receivea majority of the votes of the ~;ellSledtatpayers -votinget suoh a)notion, aeld Commissicners~Court ahall 'establishandmaintcln 6-h hospital and heva the powers as set out lcArticle 4478, Vernon’sAnnotated Civil Statutee. You state tbst tha afeotlonwe6 held under Article 4493, Vernon's Amotated Cl~ll Stat&err, and that there was a favorablevote authorizing the issuance of 66ld bonda.

The 6Mwer t-0 your Qw6tfOILTdibpeKki6 UpOn the OOnstructlon of the word a6~lla a6 wed In the above nent?.oned etetut es. A6 stated in yourbriar the ceee of Xoyar v* Rally, 93 S. WI (fid)

SO& tta,oourt saidt %I statutory oon6tructlonthe word *shall* 16 generally oonetruad to be mandatory.

. . .*

at fn the Oa66 Of lhtfond SUWty CompUIy 7. Led&, ll6 S. 8, (Ed) BOO, it la **stated: -** 

"In the OOlletNOtiOnOf 6-+ut66 theword

_ . a ma xi& nay be aomtruea to mean isnau or tne wora 1 my bc oon6tzuad f0 m6n pay 6OOOrdi.U me intent axprassrd 

### In the 6tadut.a.

. . .a :I- --_,Eozornble John S!.Shook, Pace 4

It isapparent tbit the aWmrltlaa ars in conrllct ropaidihg the statutory aohstructlonOS the word WshQl*. There 1s e lon& line OS authoritfsrholding in rtSsct the sasa thing. Ro?mef, the nerds or a statute era a.ccorQed thexeaalng that coxporte ~1% the 1s:lslative Intention. Othernise stated, thlr rule is that the statutory words ara to be lnterpratad**according** to the sensa in whloh theywere &Gently used by the Lei;islature.Thus when oeoeesary to fulfill extended the le&lslative l&ant, themaoin~ ‘31 words xay be boyoador restrictedwithin their natural import. The 1eCielatlreintention 1s primarilyfouhd in the l.an;uaGe of the Btutute,and thereSore the word8 lzpllsdara ordlnarily@vra their plrb moaning (Simona rl Amla, 220 s.v, 66* StateY. 1 s. ?r:.

j2d) 557; William, 0 Tex. 255; Ktnder v. YJ&

T6x86 ~ur~spudsroe, Vol. ss, ps lE4.j fe think that the word “shall”c.8used in the above sentionedstatutes should be **given** itsplain maning and is usedby the Le&&tu?e in t!zia~i?ee, furis hcundu?s, Vol. 2G, p. lll33: As atstsb Sn Corpus

wTii~ ?fSact of a favorablemtn at e duly aut?.orized

5oWI *lectl:n is ta ?:eXeit t.hc! iaty of the rroper county aUt!ioritieS tn iFaGe t%e i‘:n;G, v4nlean

dk3CE3tiGCP.r~ ;VnW? i6 VCStO~ in **t:w,;** but **EUC ’** **: ‘** **rot.6 do66**  **not Oa6titute**  **%** blndlng eontract for the iaruahcaof boo&. (Citiing f3:e

ca696 of Xil~lqton, etc. 3.’Co. v. Qnslow Sounty, 23 8. 2:.205, 115 1;.C. 565; ?I, S.-Wadsworth t. St, Croix County, 4 I’.375!.*
Aster a oaxwful searoh of the authorities ror a oaee 1~ polat on the above questlcn,we **have** been unable to findany Texas casewNoh decides this issue. Ke hnra conrideredthe t.m oases lb other jurl~dlotlohn,cited above, whiEtheld in me0t t&t *the 8rmt ot a favorable rot6 at a duly authorized bond electfoa is to make it the duty oS theproper oounty aut.horltler to **issue t.ke**  bvnds, uuleas diaaretionerypolrer 1s vested lh then”: but after cerefully oonehlaring Chapter 5, Title 71 rupra llrtlcles

4470 ahd +483 contalne and especially 8 themin, we Sdl to fliid nbpre power 1s vested in the COLmieslomm3’ Court to exer**I any**  dlecrotlon to det mmine whether such mhouldnotbe issued. %a ballarr that the 

### ,hOuld of a

# ‘- 359

f!omrable John R. Shook, Page 8

favorable *:ote

at a duly authorizedbond election 18 to nake it the duty of the Comlssioners~ Ccwt to issue the bonds under thea’Jovb nentloned chapter. It is our further opinion that the word “shallw ad used ie the said oht?tsr is co.?neotion Sit:.the issuanceof said bonds ia mndatory. Thematter of eecurlngmoney for,the gw~oae8 ofmaintslnlne and opmrating said hoepltal, after its emction, cannotbe aettm~-insd by this aeparb,nt, but mul)tbe determinedby the Conmlssionere~ Court.

Tru8t.l~ that tha foregoin!: fully amvmra your inquiry, we ere Yours very truly

APR AWXiK!CY cT?!!?ML OF TSXAS sywQ;“, Ardell 7iilliama

Assistnnt