TIEICE ATTOHNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Mr. HenryWade Opinion No. C-480 District Attorney Dallas, Texas Re: Whether land originally acquired by the County of Dallas by quitclaim deed andused 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. Youhave submitted for our consideration the following questions: 1. Whena 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. Canthe 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 1 k If the county holds fee title? If the county holds ea,sementtitle? In view of the hereinafter mentioned authorities, wedeemit 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, andtherefore there wasnever anytitle in the County of Dallas that would pass to the City of Dallas after annexation. Title to city streets is vested in the State. 28Tex.Jur.2d 162, Highways and Streets Sec. 134; City of Mission v. Popplewell, 156Tex. 269, 294S.W.2d 'j'lpm); Texarkana v. Southwestern Tel. &Telegraph Co., 106S.W. 915, - -2271-I -. ,

Mr. HenryWade, page
(Tex.Civ.App. 1907). 2 

## (c-480)

Inregard to title to county roads, in the case of Robbins v. Limestone County, 114Tex. 345, 

### 268S.W.915 (19r the SupremeCourt held:

“While the title, under the authority of law, was taken in the nameof the county and under statutory authority, andthe county was authorized and charged with the construction andmaintenance of the public roads within its boundaries, yet it was for the state andfor the benefit of the state and the people thereof.” In the samecase onpage 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 magexercise 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 maydetermine.” The City of Dallas Is a HomeRule city and is governed by Articles 1165-1182f, Vermonta Civil Statutes. Dallas Co, W.C. and I.D. No. 3v. City of Dallas, 149Tex. 3b2, 233 W2d 291 (19501.

. . ByArticle 1175, Section 18, 

### VernontsClvll Statutes, the Legislature delegates to the cities powers therein contained:

“TOcontrol, regulate and remove all obstructions or other encroachments or encumbrances on any public street, alley or ground, andto narrow, alter, widen or straighten any such streets, alleys, avenues or boulevards, and to vacate and

### abandonandcloseany such streets,

. . . over and upon the streets or avenues of such city. ” (mnphasls added) In Feris v. Bassett, 227S.W.233, (Tex.Civ.App.. 1921), It Is stated: Anincorporated city or 

### townunder our &&es 

### hasthe exclusive control of all the streets andhighways within the limits of the corporation, and, whensuch corporation in Its -2272-Mr. HenryWade, 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 SanAntonio v. Bexar Metropolitan Water District, m SW2d 491 (Tex.Civ.App. 1958, error ref.1, 6-t held:' '

"Whenthe 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. Theanswer to question No. 3 is that the county never ownedtitle 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.HenryWade,page4 (C-480)

APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTBE W.V.Geppert,Chairman HaroldKennedy BillAllen MiltonRichardson PaulPhy APPROVEDFORTHEATTORNEYGENERAL BY: T.B.Wright

-2274-