Honorable M. H. Barton 

County Attorney 

Rusk County 

Henderson, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion Number O-6720 

Re: Vote required for city 

or county to issue bonds 

for city or county hospital. Also, from what 

rendition sheet shall 

list of qualified voters 

be taken? 

This is In reply to your letter of July 1.6, 1945, which 

reads as,follows: 

"Will you kindly give me an opinion in regards 

to a city or county voting a bond issue for a 

city or county hospital? Does it require a 

two-thirds majority or j,ust a majority of the 

qualified taxpaying voters when the tax rate 

would not be raised any higher than the present 

rate? The laws are conflicting, in some places 

it says parks, etc., two-thirds majority, where 

other places It says roads and municipal bulldings Is a majority. 

"A bond election that would be held in September, 

1945 would the qualified voters be taken from 

the rendition sheet for 1944 or the one rendered 

In 1945.” 

Article 4478, Chapter 5, Title 71, Vernon's Annotated 

Civil Statutes, 1925, provides, in part, as follows: 
page #s, (0-6720) 

court of any county shall have 

a county hospital and to enhospitals for the care and 

Honorable M. Ii. Barton, 

“The commissioners 

power to establish 

large any existing 

treatment of persons suffering from any illness, 

disease or injury, subject to the provisions of 

this chapter. At Intervals of not less than 

twelve months, ten per cent of the qualified property tax paying voters of a county may petition 

such court to provide for the establishing or enlarging of a county hospital, in which event said 

court within the time designated in such petition 

shall submit to such voters at a special or regular election the proposition of Qsuing bonds in 

such aggregate amount as may be designated in said 

petition for the establishing or enlarging of such 

hospital. Whenever any such proposition shall receive a majority of the votes of the qualified 

property tax payers voting at such election, said 

commissioners sourt shall establish and maintain 

such hospital and shall have the following powers: 

* * 46.” 

In consideration of the provisions of Article 4478, you 

are advised that It requires only a majority vote of the taxpayers of the county to authorize the officers of a oounty to 

issue bonds for the establishing or enlarging of a county hospital. If the city involved In your question is a Home Rule 

city, then It would come under the provisions of Section 10, 

Article 1175, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which provides, 

in part as follows: 

“10. The power to control and manage the finances 

of any such city; to prescribe Its fiscal year and 

fiscal arrangements; the power to issue bonds upon 

the credit of the city for the purpose of making 

permanent public improvements or for other public 

purposes in the amount and to the extent provided 

by such charter, and consistent with the Constitution of this State; provided, that said bonds shall 

have first been authorized by a majority vote by 

the duly qualified property taxpaying voters 

at an election held for that purpose, * * * ” 

voting 
Honorable M. H. Barton, page #3, (0-6720) 

Therefore, in considera,tion of the provlslon,s of Article 

1175, if the city, Involved in your question is a Home Rule 

city, it would require only a majorlty~vote to authorize the 

city officials to issue bonds for the establishment of a city 

hospital. 

We have been unable to find any specific statute or 

ruling of the courts of t,his State that determines clearly and 

emphatically whether a city, not a Home Rule city and operating 

under the, generals .law , could issue hospital bonds upon a 

majority or a two-thirds vote. 

The Twenty-sixth Session of the Texas Legislature, 1899, 

enacted Chapter LXVII, and Section 1 of said chapter provides 

as follows: 

“Section 1. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for the 

commissioners’ court of any county, or the city 

council of any, Incorporated town or city In this 

State to issue the bonds of said county for any 

purpose authorized by law, unless a proposition for 

the issuance of such bonds shall have been first 

submitted to a vote of the qualified voters, who 

are property taxpayers of said county, incorporated 

town or city, and unless a majority of the said 

qualified property taxpayers, voting at said election, 

is in favor of the proposition for the issuance of 

bonds, then the said bonds shall not be issued. If 

the proposition for the issuance of bonds be sustained by a majority of the said property taxpayers 

voting at said eleotlon, then the said bonds shall 

be authorized and shall be issued by the said oommissioners t court; provided, that this act shall not 

be construed to authorize and render valid bonds 

without being first submitted to the Attorney-General 

and certified to by him as now required by law.” 

The same Legislature, namely, Twenty-sixth Legislature, 

enacted Chapter CXLIX, and Seotion 1 of said Act provides as 

f 0110ws: 
Honorable M. H. Barton, page #4 (0-6720) 

"Section 1. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for 

the commissioners' court of any county, or the 

city council of any incorporated town or city 

in this State, to issue the bonds of said county, 

or town or city, for any purpose authorized by 

law, unless a proposition for the Issuance of 

such bonds shall have been first submitted to a 

vote of the qualified voters, who are property 

taxpayers of said county, town or city, and unless 

a majority of the said qualified property taxpayers, 

voting at said election, is in favor of the proposition 

for the issuance of bonds, then the said bonds shall 

not be issued. If the proposition for the issuance 

'of bonds be sustained by a majority of the said 

property taxpayers, voting at said election, then 

the said bonds shall be authorized and shall be 

issued by the said commissioners' court, or said 

town or city council; provided, that this Act shall 

not be construed to authorize and render valid bonds 

without being first submitted to the Attorney-General, 

and certified to by him, as now required by law." 

The Revised Civil Statutes of 1911 combine Chapter LXVII 

and Chapter CXLIX, making them Article 605, which provides as 

follows: 

"Article 605. Election on bonds required.--- It shall 

be unlawful for the commissioners' court of any county, 

or the city or town council of any Incorporated town 

or city in this state, to issue the bonds of said 

county, or town or city, for any purpose authorized 

by law, unless a proposition for the issuance of 

such bonds shall have been first submitted to a vote 

of the qualified voters, who are property taxpayers 

of said county, town or city; and unless a majority 

of the said qualified property taxpayers, voting at 

said election, be in favor of the proposition for the 

issuance of bonds, then the said bonds shall not be 

issued. If the proposition for the issuance of bonds 

be sustained by a majority of such property taxpayers, 

voting at such election, then such bonds shall be 

authorized and shall be issued by such commissioners' 

court, or city or town council; provided, that this 
Honorable M. H. Barton, page #5 (0-6720) 

article shall not be construed to authorize and render 

valid bonds without being first submitted to the attorney 

general, and certified to by him, as'now required 

by law. (Acts 1899, pp. 103 and 258.)” 

The codifiers of the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes divided 

Article 605 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1911 and made two 

articles of the same, namely, Article 701 of Chapter 1, 

Title 22, and Article 719 of Chapter 2, Title 22, which articles now provide as follows: 

"Article 701. Shall hold election. -- The bonds of 

a county or an incorporated city or town shall never 

be issued for any purpose unless a proposition for 

the Issuance of such bonds shall have been first 

submitted to the qualified voters who are property 

taxpayers of such county, city or town. Acts 1899, 

pp. 103 and 258." 

"Article 719. Requisite vote. -- If a majority of the 

property tax paying voters voting at such election 

shall vote in favor of the proposition, then such 

bonds shall be thereby authorized and shall be issued 

by the commissioners court. Acts 1899, pp. 103 and 

258. 'I 

Article 719, as placed in the Revised Civil Statutes of 

1925, pertains only to bonds authorized by Article 718. Evldently the codifiers of the 1925 Civil Statutes intended to 

place a similar provision as contained in Article 719 under 

Chapter 1, Title 22, which relates to'beneral Provisions and 

Regulations," but through oversight failed to Include such a 

provision. 

In Runnels v. State, 77 S. W. 458, 459, the Court of 

Criminal Appeals of Texas had before it a similar question, and 

we quote from said opinion as follows: 

"In Braun v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. App. 286, 49. S.W. 

6~3, it was held that, although the codifiers had 

failed to bring forward in the new Code certain 

provisions of an original act, yet the court, In 

considering an article brought forward, could look 

back to the original act to construe the same, 

and ascertain Its meaning with reference to another 

provision of the Code in the same chapter. In that 
Honorable M. H. Barton, Page #6 (O-6720) 

connection the court'quoting from Black on Interpretation of Laws, pp. 368, 369, said: 'When the 

language of the Code or revision as it stands would 

lead to absurdity or highly improbable results, it 

may be compared with the language of the original 

statute to ascertain if the phraseology has not been 

changed by mistake or inadvertence.' So, without 

holding that we can interpolate or bring forward a 

portion of an article that formerly existed as a 

part thereof after the same has been left off for 

so many years, so as to constitute it a part of 

the article in question, we hold, in accordance 

with the principle indorsed In Braun's Case, that 

we can look back to the original statute in order 

to determine whether the same was left off by 

mistake or inadvertence, and to aid in construing 

and interpreting the present Act. * * *' 

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the codifiers of 

the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes "by mistake or inadvertence" 

failed to bring forward and place under the provisions of 

Chapter 1, Title 22, the required number of votes necessary 

to authorize a city to issue bonds under said chapter. 

'Ithough the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 failed to 

provide for the required vote, the Attorney General's Department 

and the Bar of the State of Texas have consistently since 

1925 approved all bond issues coming under the provisions of 

Chapter 1, Title 22, when said bond issues were authorized by 

a majority vote. 

Taking into consideration the legislative history of 

Articles 701 and 719, the authority above quoted and the policy 

of the Attorney General's Department and the Bar of this 

State, we are of the opinion that only a majority vote is 

required to authorize a city to issue bonds for the establishment of a hospital. 

Article 7151, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides, 

in part, as follows: 

"All property shall be listed for taxation between 

January 1~ and April 30 of each year, when required 

by the assessor, with reference to the ouantlty 

held or owned on the first day of January In the 

year for which the property is required to be listed 
_ . . - 

Honorable M. H. Barton, page #7 (O-6720) 

or rendered. Any property purchased or acquired 

on the first bay of January shall be listed by or 

for the person purchasing or acquiring it. **+'I 

Article 1043,'Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides 

as follows: 

"Each person, partnership snd corporation owning 

property within the limits of the corporation shall, 

between January first and April first of each year, 

hand to the city assessor and collector a full and 

complete sworn inventory of the property possessed 

or controlled by him, her or them, within said 

limits on the first day of January of the current 

year. If the fiscal year of a municipal corporation 

runs otherwise than the calendar year, such corporation may by ordinance require said inventory to be 

made as of the first day of such fiscal year, in 

which case the inventory shall be handed to the city 

assessor and collector within the.first three months 

of the fiscal year. Acts 1875, p. 113; G;L. vol. 8, 

p. 485; Acts 1934, 43ra Leg., 3rd C.S., p. 50, ch. 

27, sec. 1." 

Considering the above quoted articles, we are of the oplnIon that the qualified voters of a county or city voting at a 

bona election to be held in September, 1945, should be taken 

from the rendition sheet for the year 1945. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORREY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

/i/ R. J. Long 

BY R. J. Long 

Assistant 

RJL-s-eb 

APPROVED JULY 31, 1945 

/s/ Ocie Speer, Acting 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

(Acting) 

APPROVED 

OPIyIoN 

COMMITTEE 

BY G.W.B. 

Chairman