OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

scnorable 5%. F. Xiisks 

:&unty Attorney 

.&O C0unt.J 

@idd~n6s, 7bxt.m 

prsr sir: 

33: can the 

your letter of r eating an oppinion 

d thersin reads ae 

treets; 2. (Ian 

olty, and also provides the 

ok for the oommunlty surroundoutside of the olty limits? 

w I my opinion that the City oan not 

donate money for the purchaee of a fire truak 

axoapt by an agreement to furnish its use to 

the entire aounty, 1 BP or the opinion that tha 

oounty aan agree with the alty to help In the 

maintsnanae 0r streets. I beaa thin latter aontention on Smith va. Calthy 228 S. Y:. 198 and 

Eughee v. County Comel~sloner~ Court Of Ha@8 

county, 35 a. ?Y. 2nd ala, wherein it la held 
a 

Honorable ;E. F. Kieke, Fag3 2 

that the oounty has authority to help maintain 

streets within the oity limits, providing the 

oity does not objeot. 

“1 should appreaiate an opinion in regard 

to the above rrom your department. I believe 

that perhaps the opinion reoently given Travis 

County tith reference to a donation to some Army 

unit may be of help to me and I should like to 

have a copy or same.” 

It is stated in our Opinion Zo. o-1190: 

“As a general proposition 0r law it la settled that the oontrol and jurisdiotlon over 

streets of a muniofpal oorporation is exclusive 

in said corporation. However, the oourta have 

construed to the oountles the right to expend 

funds in the Improvement of streets withfn the 

oorporate limits of a alty when said streets 

were alao a pub110 road, particularly when done 

with the consent of the olty. see Hughes VS. 

County Commlsel.onere’ Court 0r IIerris County, 

35 s. YI. (2d) 818. This same aonalusion was 

reaohed by the Supreme Court in the case of 

the City of Breokenridge vs. Stephens County, 

40 s. w. (2d) 43, ivherein the oourt said: 

“*The aommiseioners court may expend county road bond funds for improvement of oity 

streets rorming part oi aounty roads whhsre made 

with city’s oonsent. * 

c 

*The general underlying theory being that 

such improvements must be confined to streets 

forming part of a oounty road system and also 

that the aounty must have the oonsent Or a munialpal oorporation within whloh said streets may 

be looated. The Supreme Court in the Breckenridge case, above alted, dlstlnguished between 

streets forming a part of a oounty road system 

and streets generally within the city. In that 

oase the oourt held that the ocenulssloners~ court 

could bind itself to expend oounty road bond funds 

to aid the City of Breokenridge in improving 

‘streets forming part of oounty roads, f and In 
Honorable ?:. F. Xieke, Yage 3 

the ssme ease held that the county aould not 

bind itself to aid +he City of Zreokenridgo in 

improving ‘etreete’ . It Is obvious that they 

intended to draw a dietinotion between streets, 

speuking generally of the arteries of trafflo 

within a munioipalitg, and.suoh streets ae form 

a continuation of e oounty road, but In any 

event a street whioh had been designated by the 

county as a part 0r Its system. . . . n 

In this State it is well settled, aa a general 

proposition of law, that the oommissioners’ oourt Is a 

oourt of lImited power and jurisdiotion, and has no powers 

or dutlea exoept those whioh are olearly set forth and defined In the Constitution and statutes, and those powers 

that arise by a neaessery implloatlon. The authorities 

supporting this general statement are so nu-zerous we do not 

deem It neoeaeary to oite any of them. 

:.ith reference to your first question you do not 

state whether or not the streets mentioned aonetitute a 

part of the aounty road syatem. however, in the sbsenos 

of any statement showing that said streets are a part of 

the (runty road system and in view of Cpinion No. O-1190 

and the authorities oi ted therein we respeotfully answer 

your rir3t question in the negative. 

Ile now ooneider your seoond and third questions. 

fiticle .S351a-1, V.n.C.S., reads as follows: 

‘*The Commissioners Court in all oountiea 

of this State shall bs authorized to furnish 

rlre protection and fire fighting equipment to 

the oitizanu of such county residing outaide 

the city limits of any olty, town, or vllleg4 

within the county snd/or adjoining oounties. 

?he Commissioners Court shall hsve the authority to purchase fire trucks and other fire fighting equi;.%ent by first advortisinC end reoeiring bids thereon, as provided by law. The Conmissioners Court of any county of this State 

shall also have the authority to enter bUi0 Oontracts with any oity, town, or village within.. 

the county and/or adjoining oonnties, upon such 

terms and conditions as shall be agreed upon 

,277 
Ronorable ?X. F. Kleke, Page 4 

between the.- Commissioners Court and the governing body of such city, town, or village, ror 

the use of the fire trucks and other fire fighting equipPGent or the oity, town, or village. 

It fe apeoliicaUg provided that the acts of 

MJ person or persons while fl.$ting fires, 

traveling to or rr0n fires, or in any manner 

turnluhing rim proteotlon to the oitizens or 

a aounty outside the oity limits of any olty, 

town, or village, shall be oonsldered as the 

acts of agents of the oounty In all respeots, 

- notwithstanding ouoh person or Persons may be 

regular employeea or firemen or a olty, town, 

or villa&e. No city, town, or village within 

a county and/or adjoining oountles shall be 

held liable for the aots of any of its employees 

while engaged in righting fires outside the city 

limits pursuant to any contract theretofore entared into between the Commissioners Court of 

the oounty and the governing body of the oity, 

town, or vlllsge. Provided however, that any 

tire equipment purohosed by any County shail be 

done only by a majority vote of property owning taxparers and qualified voters of suoh oounty at a oounty-wide eleotion oslled tor such 

PurPose. " 

The above quoted statute do& not authorize a 

oounty to donate any money to a oity within or without the 

county to purohase a rlre truok. 3s have been unable to 

find any other authority authorizing a oounty to donate 

money to a city for suoh purpose. 

Artlola 2351a-1, suprs, apaoirloauy authorize8 

tbe oommIssIoners* 00w 0r any 00unty 0r this state to 

enter Into contraots with any city, town, or village within 

the county and/or ad oining aounties upon auoh terms and 

oondltione as shall 

i %; 

e a 

court and the governing 

reed upon between the oommisslonars' 

ody of suoh dlty, town or village 

ror the use or rlre trucks and other fire fighting eqtiPlr,ent 

of a c lty, town, or village. Lt will be noted that the above 

ment loned statute speclf loally provldea, "provided however, 

that any fire equipment purchased by MY county shall be done 

only by a majority vote or the property Owning taXPaYerS 

and qualified voters or suah county at a county-wide elsetlon called ror auoh PUrPOse." Therefore, in reply to your 

third question, as stated nbove, YOU sre advlsed that lt is 
Ronorabla Z. 2’. Kleke, Taga 4 

our opinion that e oouuty cannot !;ioe or donate to a olty 

or town within the county any amount of money for the aintenanoe of ,streete in said olty or to-n. Dut a county oan 

legally make expenditures for the improvement and malntansnco of streets in e atty or to%% within the oounty ahan 

rald 8tmots form or oonstitute a portion of the oounty road 

aystam,when the oonsent or the city or town is had. However, 

ss above indioated, the oommlssloners* court or any county 

is euthoricad to enter into contraots with any oity, eto., 

within the oounty and/or adjoining counties, upon suoh tewm 

end conditions 88 shall be agreed upon between the oommlsalonars* 

court and the governing body or such aity, etc., for the use 

or fire truoks end other rlre righting equipment oi the olty, 

tmn, or village, in oompllance with irtlole ZMla-1, supra. 

.You have requested a oopy of our opinion to Travis 

County with refemnoe to a donation or appropriation to purohasa reading room equipment for Camp Mwla. ‘Phls opinion la 

80. O-3963 and we anolose a oopy or the aema ror your inrornation and alao a oopy of our Opinion Ho. 04190 above m+ntloned. 

Truetlw that the roregolng fully answers your lnwiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATi’ORIiEY GEXERAL OF TE= 

irdell Williama 

asslatant