., ’

JIM MATTOX Attorney General SupremeCourt Bullding P.0. Box 12548 Austin, TX. 78711. 2548 512,475.2501 Telex 9101874.1367 Telecopier 5121475-0266

714Jackson. Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 2141742-8944

4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 ElPaso, TX. 79905.2793 9151533.3484

p 01Texas. Suite 700 ,,ous,on, TX. 77002.3111 713023.5686

806 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubjm3x. TX. 79401.3479 8061747.5238

4309 N.Tenth. Suite B McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 5121682-4547

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797 512/225-4191

An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer

P 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas November 9, 1983

Honorable BobBush Chairman committee onJudiciary Texas House of Representatives P. 0. Box2910 Austin, Texas 78769 Dear Representative Bush: Opinion No.JM-90 Re: Whether a county court at law must be located at the county seat

Youaskwhether the legislature maycreate acounty court at law to sit at somelocation within the county other than the county seat. Section 1of article Vof the Texas Constitution provides in part as follows: TheLegislature mayestablish such other courts

as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction andorganization thereof
. . . . county courts at law are established under authority of this provision. Sterrett v. Morgan, 294 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1956, no writ). The constitutional county courts are established by article V, section 15of the Texas Constitution. See - also Tex. Const. art. V, 91. There is no constitutional provision which would require county courts at law to conduct their proceedings at the county seat. See Tex. Const. art. V, 91, cf. arts. V, §§15-17 (provisions on county judges, jurisdiction, and= of county court). Article 1602, V.T.C.S., provides that all terms of the county court be held at the county seat. However, this statute refers to county courts andnot to county courts at law. Moreover, astatute is subject to amendmentor implied repeal byalater statute. See, e.g., PophamV. Patterson, 51 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1932); Townsend V. Terrell, 16S.W.2d 1063 (Tex. 1929). Section 4of article 1605~1-5, V.T.C.S., authorizes a commissioners court to designate facilities outside of the county seat as auxiliary courts for purposes of conducting non-jury proceedings. The constitutional provisions regarding county courts at lawmay be contrasted with article V, section 7, which provides that a

p. 383Honorable BobBush- Page 2 (JM-90)

district court “shall conduct its proceedings at the county seat of the county inwhich the case is pending, except as otherwise provided by law.” (Emphasis added). The underlined language was added by a 1949 amendment. See HJRNo. 22, Acts 1949, 51st Session at 1496; Table I, Votes onProposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution, 1875-1949, Acts 1951, 52ndLeg., at 1621, 1627. Prior to the 1949 amendment to article V, section 7, the Texas Supreme Court held invalid the creation at Texarkana of a district court called the “Texarkana Court at Law” on the ground that a district court must be located at the county seat. Turner v. Tucker, 258 S.W. 149 (Tex. 1924). Boston, and not Texarkana, is the county seat of Bowie County. Thelegislature granted the “Texarkana Court at Law”most of thejurisdiction in civil cases exercised by the district court within Bowie, as well as muchof the jurisdiction exercised by the county court. Thesupreme court stated that “a court empowered to discharge principal functions of the district court must be regarded as adistrict court in giving effect to the commandof the amendment.” 258 S.W. at 150. The 1949 addition to article V, section 7 invalidated this holding. TheTurner v. Tucker court also relied on article IX, section 2 of the Texas Constitution, which concerns the removal of the county seat. Theopinion noted that acounty seat was originally called the seat ofjustice in the county, andthat topermit the establishment of the “Texarkana Court at Law”at Texarkana would remove the county seat without complying with the procedures set out in article IX, section Subsequent cases have ignored this secondary holding in Turner v. Tucker, or have overruled it sub silentio. The court of appeals in Jordan v. Crudgi.ngton, 225 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1949, nowrit), held that a statute establishing acourt of domestic relations was unconstitutional. The court’s jurisdiction would be equal to that of adistrict court yet manyprovisions of the creating statute could not be constitutionally applied to adistrict court; for example, it di.dnot require the court to sit at the county seat. The supreme court reversed andfound the statute constitutional except for three provisions: it provided for terms of office of more than two years; provided for the removal of thejudge andclerk bythejuvenile board; and provided for ajury of fewer than twelve persons. Jordan v. Crudgington, 231 S.W.2.d641 (Tex. 1950). In Cox v. Wood, 256 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1953), the supreme court held that ajuvenile court wasnot required to sit at the county seat of Dallas County as it existed when Dallas became the county seat. Thus, the Turner v. Tucker discussion on article IX, section 2, has not been applied to legislatively created courts. See also Attorney General Opinion C-391 (1965) (1949 amendment to article V. section 7

p. 384Honorable BobBush- Page 3 (JM-go)

authorizes legislation locating district court elsewhere in county than at county seat). In our opinion, the legislature is authorized to create acounty court at law to sit at some location in the county other than the county seat. SUMMARY

The legislature may create a law to sit at some location in than the county seat. county court at the county other

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOMGREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVIDR. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared bySusan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman JonBible David Brooks Colin Carl Susan Garrison JimMoellinger NancySutton

h

p. 385