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, alld is 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 regusstlnrr turthar 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, on April 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, 'Is the Comaisaimsre~ Court 

of Berar C~ounty, Texee, ooqelled to direct 

the conotruotlon of a tuberoular hospital, 

for whloh bonds in the 6~6 of $;t85,OGO.G0, 

were euthodxed to bs lseued by 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 own minds thnt there wad not any 

mthod by whio:: they might iso tarso to 

support the said proposed hoep f tal, 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 the paopla aho 

wtrra propo61~ 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 you will iled 

from our opinion whlohwas 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 and would 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 opinion amwaring our 

question Wo, l?* 

Chapter 5, Title 71, Vernon'6 Rmotated Civil Statutee ( authorizes aad axpowers the Comml6aloner6~ Court or 

any county to eetabllsh a oounty ho6pltal end to enlarge any 

exiatlne hos_cltels for the care end treatzant of pernone 

suffering Srorz any illness, 

ootiained In said ahaptar. 

eto., mbject to the provisions 

It Is tu=thar crotifded in 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 receive a majority of the votes of the ~;ellSled tatpayers 

-voting et suoh a)notion, aeld Commissicners~ Court ahall 

'establish and maintcln 6-h hospital and heva the powers 

as set out lc Article 4478, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutee. You state tbst tha afeotlon we6 held under Article 

4493, Vernon's Amotated Cl~ll Stat&err, and that there was 

a favorable vote 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 your briar the ceee of Xoyar v* Rally, 

93 S. WI (fid) SO& tta,oourt saidt 

%I statutory oon6tructlon the 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 OOlletNOtiOn Of 6-+ut66 the word _ . 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 is apparent tbit the aWmrltlaa ars in conrllct 

ropaidihg the statutory aohstructlon OS the word WshQl*. 

There 1s e lon& line OS authoritfsr holding in rtSsct the 

sasa thing. Ro?mef, the nerds or a statute era a.ccorQed 

the xeaalng 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 they were 

&Gently used by the Lei;islature. Thus when oeoeesary to 

fulfill 

extended 

the le&lslative l&ant, the maoin~ ‘31 words xay be 

boyoad or restricted within their natural import. 

The 1eCielatlre intention 1s primarily fouhd in the l.an;uaGe 

of the Btutute, and thereSore the word8 lzpllsd ara ordlnarily @vra their plrb moaning (Simona rl Amla, 220 

s. v, 66* State Y. 

1 s. ?r:. j2d) 557; 

William, 0 Tex. 255; Ktnder v. YJ& 

T 6x86 ~ur~spudsroe, Vol. ss, ps lE4.j 

f e think that the word “shall” c.8 used in the above 

sentioned statutes should be given its plain maning and is 

used by the Le&&tu?e in t!zia ~i?ee, 

furis hcundu?s, Vol. 2G, p. lll33: 

As atstsb Sn Corpus 

wTii~ ?fSact of a favorable mtn at e duly 

aut?.orized 5oWI *lectl:n is ta ?:eXe it 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 iaruahca of 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 

find any Texas case wNoh decides this issue. Ke hnra conridered the t.m oases lb other jurl~dlotlohn, cited above, 

whiEt held in me0t t&t *the 8rmt ot a favorable rot6 

at a duly authorized bond electfoa is to make it the duty 

oS the proper oounty aut.horltler to issue t.ke bvnds, uuleas 

diaaretionery polrer 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 exerI any dlecrotlon to det mmine whether such 

mhould not be issued. %a ballarr that the 

,hOuld 

of a 
‘

- 359 

f!omrable John R. Shook, Page 8 

favorable *:ote at a duly authorized bond election 18 to 

nake it the duty of the Comlssioners~ Ccwt to issue the 

bonds under the a’Jovb nentloned chapter. It is our further opinion that the word “shallw ad used ie the said 

oht?tsr is co.?neotion Sit:. the issuance of said bonds ia 

mndatory. The matter of eecurlng money for, the gw~oae8 

of maintslnlne and opmrating said hoepltal, after its emction, cannot be aettm~-insd by this aeparb,nt, but mul)t be 

determined by 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