, - 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable T. D. Sanaing 

COUity Attornsg, HtInSrOrd COUntJ 

S~earmn, Taxas 

Dear Sir1 

on raquaat of Ootober 10, 

tlon may ba &an 

of tha ComdmTsxaa, pasaod 8nd *a- 

& 1932, 18 hera now 

PRESCRIBINO DUTIES OF TH6: O?- 

IR REFERE;NClI.THKRPIGTO. 

on the 14th day or Bepteabber, lQ2Q, 

bald ti the Spearman Indopendsnt Road 

aby the iO8UMo@ of bond8 in tha azount 

OS $240,000.00 wore authorlxad for the pux’posa of the 

oonstruotion, caaintmnnoa and operation or a~oatlamird, 

(gnwld or paved roads 4nd turnpikea, or in al4 theroof; 

and 

**Whoroam, on the 2lst day of Maroh 1930, tha Oomdsslonars Court ade an order suthorlrlng tha fssuanos 

of $60,000.00 and later on tha 3rd day of Fobruary, 1931, 

the second awla of bondm In the naount of $60,000.00 

0r bond6 were iasuttd, mnklng a total or $120,000.00 or 

the )240,000.00 bond l lttotion beine i66Ud, learln~ 
lipnorabl. T. 0. Anolng, palg 2 

~110,000.00 worth of the boondo rhloh ha-0 not boon lol uea ~~a nd 

w*Yhero~m, the Commiooloaoro a0urO or Xauaford 

County, Voxmm, 4oolro to anooltho $UO,OOO.OO worth of 

bondm whioh hr*o.sot boon 18ouodg 

"A8 I 800 the rttet tha prrnnt ma8l8~:onon 

Court of 8alA Ooanty i8 ooaSroat8d with thrn qtlootlon88 

.l. Dl& tko Caaaluioaera Coart oa 8ho htm 

~oreul(L:4~~tho authority to uke an4 entar or 

raoord l a o h o r 6o r 2 

*‘r. It idh order ia ~Oid,~“th.~ OIB th. balMOO 0f #tbi)er9 iB th0 MiOUnt Oi $l~o,OOO~OO 

l till bo imao ud 8oldt 

-8. If raoh bond* mannet bo lwaad, tlna 

m& x lb tko Oomlmloau8 Qo ur o o t ll a n l lootlon 

in l ala rod airtriot t4 detordno whather or mat 

ths balumo of 8aoh road bond8 8lW.l be rerokd 

or eulwlld? 

*Still I toorth quootloa muot lm l mtar~r 

"4. If an l leotlon lo omllo4 and the voter8 

l bnuld vote agrlnot oona~lllng the bond8 orduod 

loouoa in the ori&nd l leotloa, thma 00uia the 

Com&oslonero* Court losuo the balonoa of oald 

'bon&o an6 l .Ll ma=? 

I. + .I 
eo llnd no provl8lon in tr.a law, either at tn.3 tlm 

ths above or&r w18 entorod, or at the preeent time, authorlrlng 

ths Coxnl8olonsr8~ Court of n OOUflty to entar an order revoking 

or o8noellng a logally authorized bond 188~. 

Court, 

The Commlaolonsro~ 

bolng a oourt of llmltod jurl8dlotlon, 18 mnlln~d otrlotly 

to tha authority oonferrod upon that Court by the Legiolaturo. 

In the oaoe of Orr, et al., T. bGsrs, et al., 47 9. 

W. (Ed) MO, the Taxarkaua Court of Civil ~ppeal8 said: 

ì* l l The bonds arnnot bo rwobd or oanoelled by a ny l g o no y unlooo Cha porrr to do l o 18 

oorUorr~4 by l~glolatlvo authority, and any doubt 

am to the l xlotonoo or 8uoh power 18, under rolll atabllahmd rlnolploo, re8alrad against it.8 

exl8tsno o . l l î 

P 

Therefore, in reply to 9uootlon N0. 1, it 18 the oglnlon 

of this deprtzmnt that the Commi88loner8 * Cour8 0r Enn8ronl County, 

Toxm, had no authority to antu the order revoking or canceling the 

4120,000 authorire bonda. 

Elowersr, wo oall your attention to the raot that in 

1958, the Leglalaturo paseed a law 8attlng up prooedura whereby 8uoh 

road bond8 oould be legaLly reroked and oanoelad. Chapter 31, Aot8 

1938, 3rd C. S., iutlole 764a, Vunon~o ‘hmotated Clrll Statute8. 

(Pirootlro data, Sopteabrr ar, 10%). hia Artl01e reads, in part, 

aa r0u0w8: 

*+ l l doetloa 1. Ia’ the event any road 

b o ~do voted or luua d or l 4-portion or ouoh road 

bonds voted or authorlmd by a oounty, polltioal 

subdlrloloa or e~rin~e diotriot or the oounty, 

rmaln unsold at the tlmo of pao8age of this Aot, 

then the Comaiooioner8* Court aa 

-3 

upon it8 own 

motion or upon petition or not 088 than rmy (50) 

or P majority 0r tha qdirid prowrty taxpaying 

vo tor8 thoroor , am shown by the rsoordo of the oounty 

tax ooll~otor, 8hall order an sleotlon to determine 

whether 0r not broad baud8 shall be reYOked 01 

0anoelled. Aoh l laotlon shall be ordorod, hmld 

ana oonduoted in tha 8amm form and mannor aa that 

at which eu0h b05d8 war0 orlglnally authorized. 

I( . .I 
By the authority of thim l tmtutm, tha Cornmimmlonorm~ 

Court, mmy, upon lta own motion, omll an mlmation, or upon thm 

petition or rirty (SO) or a mjority 0r the qualiried property 

taxpaying votorm, sh a ll o r der a n l loatlon. Theruon, in reply 

to your third qumation, we l ro of the opinion that it la In the 

4Imormtloa or thm Commlmmlowrm * Court whether or not they oall 

mn l lootlon to ravokm or mmnoml maid bond.. However, ii rirtr (30) 

of the qualiflod property taxpaying rotara or a maforlty of the 

qadirid pmpmrty taxpmyln6 votmrm, pmtI8loa thm Court, it WOUND 

bm mandatory upon them to oall much aa l lootloa. 

In nply to ~ummtlonm lfom. a md 4, wo qwte from th0 

Buprmm Court of Tuam, la ttm oam of City of Howton v. YoCraw, 

lls 8. w. (au) lRlS: 

ì* l + It m4oma to ba field in the JJJJ or 

City o f Au&in v. Va lle, l upra, Cohen v. city o i 

bumton, l uprm, utd ~lmQin&StItrmr Road Building 

co. v. Clammtmin, Tu.C~V.ARR. ?a a. 1. 819, that, 

where authority to immue bosdm la8 bon oonferrd 

on a gotam% body by mn l lmotIoa ordmrmd and hmld 

rOr that pUXpOJe, muoh gorernlng body mmy mxmroImm 

auoh authority and l~aaa muah bonda within a rwmoaable tlnv after muoh elsotloa. On thm other hand, 

thorn. mW authoritiem, in eiioot, hoLd that the 

Guomtioa am to what is a reamonablm or unrmnaonmblm 

lmn&h of tlim oannot always ba detormlasd by thm 

lmngth 0r tiso mlonm, but that all of the murroun4Ing 

r80t8 and olrournstanomm mumt bo taken into oonmldsration. In the oaae at bar tlu orI&ml l leotlon to 

Imaum thou bonda waa hmld In 19JZ7. About mix ymarm 

later oa August 86, 1933, at an l iaotIoa ordared l nb 

&oLl in thm olty on the qwatloa, thm puallfled property 

taXpayIng rotor8 thermoi again l xproaaod it mm their 

domlre that tlmmo bond8 mbuld k 188~04, awl thm olty 

&Ju OOll8tNOtd, atO. The ordInmno* prorldlng ror ttm 

IJ~UMO~ of thamo bond8 waa pammod on January 3, 19S8, 

l llttlo aor. thmn four ymmra Uter the l lmotlon Or 

august 86, 1953. It thum appear8 thmt not ten yeara, 

but only a little morm than four year8 harm elapsed 

l lnom thm 18e l xprmmmlon 0r the qualiriea property 

tarpmylng votera on the queatlon. We 40 not undermtand that the Attorney tinera l rmn contandr that 

a~ unreamonable length of tills ham elapsed mlnoe the 

ehoti0n 0r Auau8t is, 1933. Furthermore, wb hold, 

am a matter or law, tbut the lays. or a 11tt1. Lwre 

than four yeera user the r:lOts anil clrcu:nstanceo of 

this oase is not unruauouhbia. In this ccnneotlon, 

we OHAL attautlon to IA!!* f.lct r.rwt during a pirt of 

t:.13 tlae the c0untr.y end city were in <rant fLnnnoln1 
mtroam. Further it 1s shown that during mOJt Or thla 

tlma the olty hma been negotiating with the federnl 

gorsrnment ror J Imdmral grant to ala it in bullding 

a olty hall. This foboral grant hma IY)W boon (panted 

in th SUP Or $su,ooo. tie think that, whoa the olty 

had J roamonabla hopm of a o o ur lng l o large a grant, 

It was JuatIfIod la waiting for tht event.+ * +* 

[Indoor tha faOt8 @Ub&i$%e&in your rmquamt, JiXtJOn 

y o a r a h a ve lhpMa mlaoo thm bonds wora aathorILed. It ham JlWJyJ 

bmon tha oontmntlon of thm Bond Dlrlalon of this Dmpcrrtment that 

bonda thla old l bould iwt bm Jppi%wJd boomum in u=JJJOnJblJ 

langth of tti hd l lapaed alnoa tha authority to lamurn them waa 

granted by thm quaUfl@d property taxpmging rotmra of thm dlmtrIct 

at an Jlaotlon hold for that purpose. NJ bmllatm that tlm authority 

im 1 OJt Of beoomea izlo p er a tiif va it is not l x oro la ed b y the gm.min& body within a roamonmbla length of tifmm mftor l uoh Jlmotlnn. 

Wa alao bmllarm that In l lxtmen pars the projoot rhlmh tha~.votJrg 

bad In mind had bomn 00ap1Jt.6 with tha pl?OOMdJ from th. bondm 

IDJUJd,frCUE J Tmdmral grant, or rrom aonm other 80ume, or that 

the 

COJ 

rojoot had boon abandoned. Wo bmllmrm that tha faob that tha 

aaloaera~ Court Jntermd tha order oanomllng the authorization 

of the bonds aftar $180,000 had bean lamuad an4 aold, although 

aaia ordu was roia, uopld bo Jriaanoo or tha raot thmt the purpoao 

ror which the bona8 were l uthorlxmd hmd bama wlotmd, or that 

tha projoot had beoa abandoned. ~43 adsit thpt ii th0 qdiri0d 

voter8 voted agalnat oanoJlIn8 and revoking the old bonds It would 

rtrmngthmn the propoaItIon that thay oould bo iuumd at this lat. 

btmi but ii the qaaliilad property taxpaying rotors had wanted 

thm bon&laauJd, or had thought tha pro+& had a& been momplmtod 

or abandoned, they oould ~JTJ m~ndmmusod thm Cm-&maIonsra* Court 

at any time during thm airteen year8 to .laaue the bonda. 

Thm oa808 0itd abort hold that thrao (3) ana iire (5) 

yoarr la rwt an unmuom blm lapso. T~J city 0r Xouaton cnmJ rinda, 

am 8 amttor or law, that tha lapam 0r a llttlm tvr* than r0ur gears, 

under thb iJOt and olmuaatanoJa 0r thmt amam, iJ not an unreasonable length or thJ, but wo believe that l lxtoon (10) Years iJ an 

llzu-JaJon~blJ lapse 0r tim based on the surroundln8 racta and airmua8tanoJm Jmt out In your roqummt. Thermforo, your second and 

fourth qUeStiOn arm answer& in the nsaatlrm. 

I,+. JusgJJt that lr the road distriot de8irOs t0 imtlum 

nmw bonda for tha purpoaa 0r the oonatruotlon, LnalntJnanoe an4 
Tom ruy traly 

A?mmuT opImAI# or TEKAB