TIEICE ATTOHNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Mr. Henry Wade Opinion No. C- 480 

District Attorney 

Dallas, Texas Re: Whether land originally acquired 

by the County of Dallas by quitclaim deed and used by said 

county as a county road and 

later annexed to the City of 

Dallas, can be lawfully abandoned 

and closed by the City of Dallas 

without permission of the county, 

Dear Mr. Wade: and related questions. 

You have submitted for our consideration the following questions: 

1. When a city annexes territory wherein is located a 

county road, does the 

road: 

county thereby lose title to such 

if the county holds fee title? 

If the county holds easement title? 

2. Can the city thereafter lawfully abandon and close 

such road without permission of the county: 

I 1 ii 

if the county holds fee title? 

if the county holds easement title? 

3. If the city proceeds to abandon such road, does the 

county retain any title In such roadway: 

I k 1 

If the county holds fee title? 

If the county holds ea,sement title? 

In view of the hereinafter mentioned authorities, we deem it 

unnecessary to answer the question regarding the estate acquired by the county by virtue of the deed you have submitted 

for our consideration. County roads and city streets belong 

to the State, and therefore there was never any title in the 

County of Dallas that would pass to the City of Dallas after 

annexation. Title to city streets is vested in the State. 

28 Tex.Jur.2d 162, Highways and Streets Sec. 134; City of 

Mission v. Popplewell, 156 Tex. 269, 294 S.W.2d 'j'lpm); 

Texarkana v. Southwestern Tel. & Telegraph Co., 106 S.W. 915, - 

-2271- 
I -. , 

Mr. Henry Wade, page 

(Tex.Civ.App. 1907). 

2 (c-480) 

In regard to title to county roads, in the case of Robbins 

v. Limestone County, 114 Tex. 345, 268 S.W. 915 (19r 

the Supreme Court held: 

“While the title, under the authority of law, 

was taken in the name of the county and under 

statutory authority, and the county was authorized 

and charged with the construction and maintenance 

of the public roads within its boundaries, yet it 

was for the state and for the benefit of the state 

and the people thereof.” 

In the same case on page 918, the delegation of some 

to another political subdivision was stated thus: 

“The establishment of public highways being 

primarily a function of government belonging .to 

the state, the right to establish them resides 

.- . - _ 

powers 

prlmarlly ln the Legislature, and, ln the absence 

of constitutional restrictions, the Legislature 

mag exercise that right direct or delegate It to 

a political subdivision of the state, or to such 

other agency or instrumentality, general or local 

in its scope, as It may determine.” 

The City of Dallas Is a Home Rule city and is governed by 

Articles 1165-1182f, Vermonta Civil Statutes. Dallas Co, 

W.C. and I.D. No. 3 v. City of Dallas, 149 Tex. 3b2, 233 

. W . 2d 291 (19501. 

By Article 1175, Section 18, Vernonts Clvll Statutes, the 

Legislature delegates to the cities powers therein contained: 

“TO control, regulate and remove all obstructions 

or other encroachments or encumbrances on any public 

street, alley or ground, and to narrow, alter, widen 

or straighten any such streets, alleys, avenues or 

boulevards, and to vacate and abandon and close any 

such streets, . . . over and upon the streets or 

avenues of such city. ” (mnphasls added) 

In Feris v. Bassett, 227 S.W.233, (Tex.Civ.App.. 1921), It 

Is stated: 

An incorporated city or town under 

our &&es has the exclusive control of all the 

streets and highways within the limits of the 

corporation, and, when such corporation in Its 

-2272- 
Mr. Henry Wade, page 3 (C-480) 

creation or by subsequent extension embraces 

within its limits a portion of a public county 

road, such road becomes thereafter a street of 

the city and is no longer subject to the control 

of the county, and all the rights of the county 

in such highway passes to the city." 

Again, in City of San Antonio v. Bexar Metropolitan Water 

District, m S W 2d 491 (Tex.Civ.App. 1958, error ref.1, 

6-t held:' ' 

"When the city annexed the road, it succeeded 

to all authority over the road that the county 

theretofore held." 

Accordingly, whatever authority the county had over the road 

in question inured to the city upon annexation of the area. 

The county thereupon lost all authority over such road. Under 

Article 1175, Section 18, supra, the city could abandon and 

close such street. 

In answer to question No. 1, the county never held any kind 

of title to the street in question. In answer to question 

No. 2, under and according to the profllslons of Article 1175, 

Section 18, permission of the county to close a city street 

is not necessary. The answer to question No. 3 is that the 

county never owned title to the road or street at any time. 

SUMMARY 

Title to roadways and streets is in the State 

and not in the county or city. The City of Dallas, 

after annexing an area including a county road, does 

not need the permission of the county to abandon and 

close such road or street. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

BY 

gavavid Longoria 0 

Assistant Attorney General 

DL:gm 

-2273- 
Mr. Henry Wade, page 4 (C-480) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTBE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Harold Kennedy 

Bill Allen 

Milton Richardson 

Paul Phy 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

-2274-