Honorable William J. Lowe Opinion No. WW-1114 

County Attorney 

Donley County Re: Whether a county may 

Clarendon, Texas legally purchase and 

own a house to be used 

for residential purposes by county employees 

on a rent free basis by 

furnishing the house for 

employees as part of their 

compensation and related 

Dear Mr. Lowe: question. 

Your request for an opinion from this office 

presents the following questions: 

“1. Can the County legally purchase 

and own a house to be used for residential purposes by County employees 

on a rent free basis by furnishing 

the house for employees as a part of 

their compensation. 

"2. Can the County legally purchase 

and own a house to be used for residential purposes by County employees 

on a basis that the employees will 

pay the County reasonable rent therefor." 

Your letter also informs us that the Commissioners' Court desires to purchase the house and move 

it on property already owned by the County in a remote 

precinct in order to encourage employees of the County 

to work in that precinct. 

The Commissioners' Court does serve as the 

governing body of the County and although its control 

extendsto nearly every phase of the County's business, 

its jurisdiction is not plenary. Its power must be 

specifically authorized by the Constitution or the 

statutes. Canales v. Laug$&& 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W. 

2d 451 (1948). 
Honorable William J. Lowe, page 2 (WW-1114) 

Article 2351 of Vernon's Civil Statutes 

enumerates the various powers and duties of the Commissioners' Courts. Subdivision 7 of that statute provides 

that the Court shall: 

"Provide and keep in repair 

court houses, jails an9 all necessary public buildings. 

The power to "provide" necessary public 

buildings has been interpreted to include the purchase 

of said buildings. Dancy v. Davidson, 183 S.W.2d 195 

(Civ.App. 1944, error ref.) 

Since the provision quoted above is the 

statutory authority for the Commissioners' Court to 

purchase property, the question at hand must be 

whether the purchase of the house and subsequent remoxal 

to the lot is "providing a necessary public building. 

The case of Dancs v. Davidson, supra, concerned, the construction of the same subdivision of Article 2351 and 

defined the term in question at page 198 as follows: 

"By the term 'public building' 

as used in the statute is meant a 

building used primarily for public 

or governmental purposes, that is, 

to house public or governmental 

agencies. The power to provide 

includes the power to purchase. 

The Commissioners' Court is 

the legal body authorized under the 

statute to determine whether or not 

a 'public building' is 'necessary' 

and its decision relating thereto 

can not be disturbed by this Court, 

except upon a showing of an abuse 

of discretion. . . .' (per 

Norvell, J.) 

It can be seen from the wording of the Dancy 

case, sunra, that the Commissioners' Court has no power 

to exercise their discretion unless the building is a 

"public building." This office has written numerous 

opinions concerning public buildings and the uses consistent with such buildings. Enclosed is Attorney General's Opinion No. O-1952 (1940) written prior to the 

Dancy case, supra, holding that the Commissioners' Court 

could not construct a building to house agencies not 

strictly connected with county business as the same did 
. . 

Honorable William J. Lowe, page 3 (WW-1114) 

not come within the purview of Section 7 of Article 2351. 

This opinion and authorities cited therein define 

"public buildings" as those essential for the conduct of 

"strictly county business" and those to house "offices" 

of various officials of the county. 

According to the definitions set out above 

we must hold that the building in question 

County would not be a "public building. 

in Donley 

Your request 

states that it Is to be used for residential purposes 

only, which prohibits it from being a "public building" 

even if such a private use did serve to facilitate the 

County's business. 

It follows that since the building in question 

is not a "public building" that the Commissioners' Court 

has no power to decide whether or not it is necessary. 

Therefore, we need not reach your second question. 

SUMMARY 

A house to be used for residential purposes by County employees 

on a rent free basis as part of 

their compensation is not a 

"public building," hence the 

Commissioners' Court has no 

power to purchase a house to be 

used by County employees as a 

residence. 

Yours very truly 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

FDW:lgh 

. ” 

By&q Assist&t 
- . 

Honorable William J. Lowe, page 4 (WW-1114) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John Lawrence Hargrove 

Bob Eric Shannon 

Marietta Payne 

John Reeves 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.