The Attorney General of Texas 

August 30, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Gene Knize 

Ellis County Attorney 

Ellis County Courthouse 

Waxahachie, Texas 75165 

Opinion No. H- 1234 

Re: Authority of county to 

exchange real estate for like 

property. 

Dear Mr. Knize: 

YOU ask whether the commissioners court has the authority to dispose 

of real estate owned by the county through the method of exchange for 

similar or like property. 

The commissioners court may diiposa of land only pursuant to some 

statute. a Fer 47 Tex. 42lf1877); Attorney General Opinion M799 (1971). The statute governing the dii of land by the commissioners 

court is article 1577, V.T.C.S. Wilson v. County of Calhoun, 489 S.W.2d 393, 

397 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Attorney General 

Opinions M-799 (197U; M-524 (1969). 

Article 1577 permits the commissioners court to “appoint a Commis; 

sioner to sell or lease any real estate of the county at public auction. . . .v 

Terms such as “sell” or “sale” have been construed to encompass an exchange. 

Bowling v. City of Bl Paso, 525 S.W.Bd 539 (Tex. Civ. App. - Bl Paso) writ 

ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 529 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. 1974). It is our opinion, howe= 

that a statute that requires land to be sold at a public auction evidences the 

intent that the land be sold for money and not exchanged for other property, 

as auctions are not generally considered methods for effectuating exchanges. 

See Clark v. Stanhope, 59 S.W. 856, 858 (Ky. 1900) (auctions are a “means of 

converting things into money,” quoting Bishop on Contracts, S 528 (lst ed. 

1887)). “Auction” means “the sale of any property by competitive bid.” 

V.T.C.S. art. 8700, S l(1). If a bid of property were made at an auction, the 

property’s value would have to be validated by some procedure in order to 

determine the bid’s competitiveness. The fact that such procedures are not 

contemplated by the statute indicates that exchanges were not intended to be 

authorized. There are exceptions to the auction requirements of article 1577 

relating to highway rights-f-way or seawalls, but they are inapplicable here, 

and we need not consider them. 

p. 4927 
Honorable Gene Knize - Page 2 (~-1234) 

We note that, outside the scope of article 1577, political subdivisions with the 

oower of eminent domain and condemnation mav exchange Land between themklves. City of Tyler v. Smith County, 246 S.W.22 601 (Tek 1952); El Paso Count 

v. City of El Paso, 357 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1962, e no wrtt . 

such agreements might be considered to be “sales” of land, they are “most 

reasonably characterized as an agreement reached between two political subdivisions . . . respecting the paramount public use of land owned by one of them.” 

Attorney General Opinion H-93 (1973). 

SUMMARY 

Land sold or leased at a public auction pursuant to article 

1577, V.T.C.S., may not be exchanged for other property.- 

Land may also be exchanged between political subdivisions 

with the power of eminent domain. 

APPROVED: 

ey General of Texas 

DAVID M:KENDALL, First Assistant 

pJ&4$r 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 4928