I 

,379 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER fSLLLERS 

*rTG”NCI GSWERAL 

Vaoogdochee C 

has been built for de 

urt House which 

It ie inadequate 

s unleus auoh power is sxpresaly 

shed doctriils in this State 

2333 Fatrlcio County v. 

sdlow 61 Ter. 316; Lasater v. 

.A; C.S. , proridw# : 

of a oounty or an iroorporetad .'~ 

11 naver be leauad for anf pnropoaltion for the ir&uenor of 

bata bean rirst submitto to 

krr who ara property taxgivsrs 

, oity or towa.” 
380 

Article 703, V.A.C.S., proridart 

“The propoeltlon to be aubmittsd shall ah 

tin0tly apdry: 

1. Iha purpoas for whioh ths bonda are to be 

lesued; 

2. The amount theraor; 

3. The rat0 or interrat; 

4. Thr levy of taxaa auifioient to pey the 

annual lnterr8t and provide a sinking rund~ 

to pay the bond&at maturity; 

5. Tha maturity data, or that tha bonds may 

be issued to mature serially within any 

given number of years not to rxoaed rorty.” 

Artlolo 718, V.A. C. S. authorlzee the oommlsslonarrl oourt 

he purpoas of arooting, the county courthouse 

Articlh 719, V.A.C.S., provides: 

*If a majority of the. property tax paying 

voters voting at au& elootlon shall vote in 

favor of the proposition, than such bonds shall 

bs thereby authorized and shall be lssuad by 

the oommlssloners* oourt.* 

Is or the foregoing artioles WI held in our 

OplnJon No. O-324 .that *In the absrnor of a atat+tory provision 

.nquirin& a pstl$lon and heerlng, the Comlsslonere* Court may, 

on ltr own mbtlon ‘and order, oall an rlrotlon for the purpose or 

authorisln# the lrsuaaoa or bonds iOr thr construotlon or a oourtboo@@ an4 jail, Or rlthrr.” 

bf Brown v, Grahati, 58 Tax. 254, the ~Supreme 

,tha question a8 to the authority Oi the ooman a4dition 

laty a.~spooial~ tax ror ths.~purpo8@ ot ~bullding 

to and rapalrlng 

Y @artho roiiowine: 

th8 oourthouar. Wo quota iron said 
' mnorabla C. C. Danman - Fage 3 

: ,;.. 

"It Is olaimed that the power to argot, repair 

or oomplata a pub110 bullalng does not include the 

pOWOr to make an addition to it.. It Is true that 

the oounty oommissionara~ court onn levy no taxes 

unless the power to do ao be ~lalnly and un!!letekably 

OMrarrad. The authority muat be given either in 

express words or by necessary l~npliootlon. 2 Dillion 

on h?uun. Corp. B 763. It la no more than a reasonable 

construction of language to hold that power to eroot 

an entire building expressly authorizes the construotlon or a portion or It. It certainly doee by neoaasery 

implication. 

%hould the oommieslonere ( court oome to the conclusion that a largrr oourt house Is needed to meat 

the darvlnds of the publio business of ,thelr county, 

and they agree upon ite plan ena dimensions, and find that 

they oan seoura a building or.nronning to them .in every 

raspaot, either by areoting a new struotura, or altering, 

repairing and enlarging the old one, and that the lattar 

mode will be leas l xpanaiva by halr than the former, is 

there any reason in holding that they oan levy the t.:x 

ror the more expansive mode of attaining their object, 

when they oould not for the other, though the structure 

which is the result is precisely the same in every partloular? 

Y!ha object or the rOreqoing provlslons or our 

constitution and statutes vma to enable the dirrarent 

counties to provide suitable public edifioee, laavln(: 

it to the judgment of the proper authorities whether 

this should be dono by building new houses or by rapairing and adding to old ones, when they oould thus 

be rendered suitable to the purposes of the oounty. 

The word *araot*, oontalnaa In all the foregoing provisions, was the most' oomprahenslve term that could 

be need to anbraoa all suoh improvements. 

"To hold that a county whose court house, with 

proper repairs and additions, oould be rendered oommodlous and usarul In every respaot, must pull It 

down and build an entirely new one, would be to 

oharga our law-givers with an intent to anoourage 
. 

Honorablo C. C. Denman - Fags I, 

an unnecessary expendltura of the publio money. 

Suoh a ooneldaration wrould not, in Itself, 

authorize ua to infer a power when not sxpraesly 

glv~n or naceeaarily implied. Yet when the lenguage used, Is oapable of lnoludlng authority to 

do an aot not mentioned In terms, suoh oo;lstructlon of It is greatly aided by oonsldarotlons of 

public advantage which it would oartoinly produo..” See aleo Sanders Y. Loonay, 225 ;.‘A!. 280. 

In vlar; of the foregoing autborltles, It is our opinion 

that tti ComaPlzslonars ’ Court hao authority to 0011 an elaotlon ror 

the purpozr of authorizing the isauanoa of bonds for the oonstruotlon 

or an addition or additions to the oourthousa if it datermines zuoh 

edditlon or additions are “needed to meat the denrands of .tha pub110 

buslnesr or the county.” 

Yours, vary truly