Eon. Bill S. Watkins 

County Gtorney 

Llano County 

Llano, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion Wo. O-962 

Re: Could “acquisition of right-ofway” be construed to include the fee 

charged by an engineer for making a 

survey of a road that is included in 

the call for the bond election? 

We have your letter of recent date requesting an 

oi>inion on the above stated question. 

We quote from your letter as fOllOidS: 

“I am exlosing herewith a copy of a resolution passed :-‘y the CommissionersI Court of Llano 

County, Texas, prior to the passa;e of the bond 

issue mentioned in said resolution. 

“Some time before said election a group of 

private citizens of this county hired~ a civil engineer to make a survey of the proposed Brady road 

mentioned in subdivision (a) of said resolution. 

These citizens asreed to pay said engineer w:hen aad 

if silic! surve:; s!lould be approved by the Highway 

Department. 

“The -&;ineers of the I;i,?;hway Department ap- 

;xoved said survey; and said bond issue having been 

voted by the :>eo-,le in the meantime, these citizens 

requested the county to pay the fee charged b:r said 

Engineer ~for said. survey out of the bond money voted. 

“The ;,uestion ar?.sing in .the mind of th< ><:riter 

was w:-iether ‘acquisition of right-of-way’ could be 

construed to include fee charged by an engineer for 

making a survey of a road that is included in the 

call for the box? election. The Commissioners’ Court 

is willing: to ~>,a;? thi s fee if tiley can legally pay 

saxe out of this bond money. I shall therefore a,Jpreciate very much :;our givin;; ile ,-our o:>inion on the 

legality of su.c;i 1 ~~ayment.” 

11; is elexn’tary tiltit the funds derived from the sale 

of bonds ma:; ::ot be diverted from the i_$ur.noses specified in t?le 

li ., 
Hon. Bill S. Watkins, page #2. 

E roposition submitted to the electors. Aransas County v. 

oleman-Fulton Pasture Company, 191 S.W. 553, Heathman v. 

Singletary, 12 S.W. (2d) 150, Huggins v. Baden, 259 S.W. 

204. 

It follows that where a departure from the proposition appearing on the ballot paper is alleged, the only question is whether the expenditure contemplated is within or 

without the proposition upon.its true construction. Adams v. 

Mullen, 244 S. W. 1083. 

Construing propositions to this end, it has been 

held by the courts that "road" includes a bridge constituting 

a necessary length in the road, and that l%urnpikes" means 

hard-surfaced roads. Aransas County v. Coleman-fulton Pasture 

Company and Adams v. Mullen, supra. 

The Attorney General's office has held in an opinion 

written by the Honorable Scott Gaines, former Assistant Attorney General, that road bond money may be used in construction 

of the proper drains and ditches when such are appropriately 

and incidentally connected with the construction of the road 

proper. 

And by an analogy of reasoning we see no reason why 

it would not be held that a survey is necessary in the "acquisition of the right-of-way." 

Therefore, it is the opinion of this department that 

if the Commissioners' Court desires to pay the fee charged by 

the engineer for making a survey of the road, it may enter.an 

order finding that the survey was necessary to the acquisition 

of the right-of-way, and may legally pay for same out of the 

bond money. 

However, we want it clearly understood that we are 

not holding that the Commissioners' Court must assume the debt 

set out in your letter, but the fact that a survey is necessary to the "acquisition of a right-of-way", they may assume 

the debt if they so desire. 

Trusting that this answers your question, we remain, 

APPROVED JTJL 14, 1939 

s/ W. F. Moore 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY cz3~mfi.L OF mxAs 

FIRST ASSISTANT By /s/ Claud 0. Boothman 

ATTORNEY GENERAL Claud 0. Boothman, Assistant 

APPROVED: ,OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY: WRK. CHAIRMAN 

COB-s:wb '