May 1, 1946 

Honorable Arthur Foster 

County Attorney, Haskell County 

Haskell, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion O-7213 

Re: Can the Commissioners* Court of 

Haskell County sell the Series 

D issue of bonds and use the 

funds for the purpose of aiding 

in the construction of and 

purchasing right of way for farm 

to market roads in said County? 

We acknowledge receipt of the opinion request of Honorable 

Fred Stockdale, District Attorney, 39th Judicial Distriat, and 

we quote from his letter as follows: 

"The Commissioners' Court of Haskell County desire to have 

an opinion from your department concerning certain road 

bonds oreviouslv voted and issued. Kindly address your 

reply io Honorable Arthur Foster, County Attorney of 

Haskell County. 

"Haskell County now holds an issue of $243,000.00 road 

bonds which have not been sold. This issue is a part of 

an original issue of $760,000, and were designated as 

Series D. I have before me a transcript of the original 

bond issue showing this particular $243,000.00 Series D 

being a part of said issue and the certificate of the 

Attorney General appearing in this Series D transcript is 

dated April 4, 1941, and at the bottom of said certificate 

appears # 1975, Book #Se 

"It is my understanding that this original issue was 

voted and issued for the purpose of aiding in the purchase 

of right of way and construction of state highways and 

bridges through the county. However, this work has already been completed. At this time the Commissioners' 

Court proposes to obtain right of wayfor farm to market 

roads which were not contemplated at the time of the 

original issue. 

"The question is submitted: Can the Commissioners Court 
Hon. Arthur Foster - Page 2 O-7213 

of Haskell County sell the above Series D issue and 

use the funds for the purpose of aiding in the construction of and purchasing right of way for farm to 

market roads in said county. A certified copy of the 

pre election order is enclosed. The following authorities 

are also submitted: Black vs. Strength, 246 S.W. 79; 

Aransas County, et al vs. Coleman-Fulton Pasture Co. et al, 

191 SW 556; Fletcher vs. Ely, 53 SW (2) 817; Sparks vs. 

Sparks 189 SW (2) 354." 

We have carefully examined the transcript of 

the proceedings on file in the Comptroller's office authorizing 

the issuance of the bonds mentioned in your request, and we 

find that said bonds were issued "for the purpose of the 

construction, maintenance and operation of maoadamieed, graveled 

or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid thereof, in said County, 

under and by virtue of Section 52 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and under the laws enacted pursuant thereto, including Chapter 16 Acts of the First Called 

Session of the 39th Legislature ++?&.)I 

It appears from the proceedings that no reference was made 

"earmarking1 the money for a particular road or a particular 

type of construction. We are furnished with no facts or orders 

showing that the proceeds of said bonds were "earmarkedw. 

Based on the transcript of proceedings that we have before us, 

it is our opinion that the Commissioners' Court of Haskell 

County may sell the Seried D issue of bonds and use the funds 

for the purpose of aiding in the construction of and purchasing 

right-of-way for far-to-market roads in said County. 

If we are in error in assuming that no conditions were attached 

to said bonds, as hereinbefore state, a different conclusion 

would result. 

In this Department's opinion No. O-2088, we held as follows: 

% 8 G The authorities seem to hold that the approval of 

the electors of the proposed bond issue with whatever terms 

and conditions that the governing body imposes thereon 

previous to the election, creates a status analogous to a 

contractual relation. In construing a similar order passed 

by a commissionersr court prior to a county-wide bond 

election, the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Black 

et al v. Strength et al., 246 S.W. 79, saidr 

"rThe order would not have been made save with a view to 

its being relied on by the voters. With the bond issue 

authorized by votes cast in reliance on the order, as 

must be assumed, it could not be arbitrarily ignored or 

repudiated without involving the perpetration of fraud or 
_ _ ,- 

Hon. Arthur Foster - Page 3, O-7213 

its equivalent on the voters. 

"rUnder these circumstances, the order was, in effect, 

a contract with the people, and good faith required that 

the aonstract be kept.' 

"Any other rule would tend to undermine public confidence 

in the acts of public officers. See also Golden Gate 

Bridge and Highway Distriot v. Filmer, 21 Pac. (2d) 112; 

Perry v. Los Angeles, 203 Pac. 992." 

We believe that there is some error in the facts stated in the 

opinion request wherein the statement was made that Haskell 

Copnty holds as issue of $243,000 road bonds which have not 

been sold. We have checked with the Board of County and 

District Road Indebtedness, and their records reveal that 

$105,000 Haskell County Road Bonds Series D have been sold ad 

that said bonds participate in the County and Road District 

Bighway Fund. 

We call your attention to our opinion Ro. o-6706, wherein we 

held '*that under the provisions of Chapter 244, Acts of the 

48th Legislature, Regular Session 1943, the State Highway 

Commission is authorized to designate farm-to-market roads, 

provided the Commissioners ' Court in which any such county 

road is located shall pass and‘enter in its minutes an order 

waiving any rights such county may have for participatian by 

the State in any indebtedness incurred by the county in the 

construction of such county roads." For your information a 

copy of this opinion is enclosed. . 

Trusting that this answers your questions, we are 

Very truly yours, 

ATTORNEY GET?ERAL OF TEXAS 

s/ Claud 0. Boothman 

APPROVED MAY 2, 1946 

s/ Grover Sellers 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

COB:V/cg 

BY: 

Claud 0. Boothman 

Assistant 

Approved Opinion Committee By BWB, Chairman