*- . . 

THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

. 

Itfm&D~lo; H. Doherty qpinion #o. ww 785 

San Au&umtlnej Toxar .Re: mother tht County Judge 

or ,DIet,rIct Judge 8ppolnte 

Spealal Oonnalreloners and 

render6 Judgments In EmInent Domain Prodeedlngs 

Inmnneugu8tIne and Sablne 

ë. l 

Dear lb r ? Do her fa w 

We .have Jrour letter In which you request an opinion 18 

mllow~r : 

~%der S.& ‘Na. 19,~ 56th iegialature; t&d, Cillod 

8Jeerlon, V.A~.C:S. Arty. 1970-310, ~cimcernlng~ eminent T 

domain proaedurea,~~doea th+ couilty judge or khe diatrlct 

judge .make the appointment of the~apeoIal.conmIsaIoners . 

$n condemnation .Mttcm e,rtainlng .to the state hlghuayis, 

&nd IS the e0unt.y’ judge,~niakOr atiah appointment, Ia,the 

SInal decltilon of iuch ~aom&rlone~, wider existing .law, 

made the judgment o? the county or the, d,lstriot court? 

Stitsd~‘another’uay, Is the petItIon nor rtatemant 19 

wrItIng oheking the appointment ,?f such a board 4nd the 

aonaequent aondemation hop. the rip-of-yay, Slled with 

the. county or the dlatriat ‘judge? 

The above msntloried. act la alro ,found at Pages 90 of the Acts 

OS the Seaond Called Session OS, the 56th LegIaLature (1959:) , the, 

pertinent provlrlons of whlah~read ae’S~llo?rcI: 

“Section 1. !She eoUnty courts of the Counties OS 

Sablne and San AquatIne shall retain and oontlnue-to 

have aad exercise the general arinclnal jurlsdlctlon, 

both orlgltil ah@ appellate, and the general jurladlction of ,probste courts, and ‘all jurledictlon other than 

in civil mattera, Including eminent domaIn~j&lsdlction 

OS which Ia, hers conies-red on ,the district otirt Sor 

~8aId countlee, now or hereinafter conferred upon such 

county oourts ,by the Constltutlon and ‘laws of the state, 

and shall retain all juflsdlctlon and power to lpsue .~. 

writs neoesaary to the enforcement 0s~ thelr~ jur5.ndlctldn, 
Hon. James Ii. Doherty Page 2 (w 785) ., 

., 

and to punish contempt;'but, contempt;'but, said bounty o&t8 shall ~~ 

have no civil jurisdiction, jurisdiction, except as to Mnal judgments judgments 

reterred reterred to In Section Section 2 hereof, hereof, 

"Section 2. The district court OS tpe Firs+ Judlclal District having jurisdiction In said ~Countles of 

Sabi;ne and San Augustine shall have and exercise jurls-. 

dlsGlon In matters of eminentdomain and In all other 

matters and cases OS a,clvll,.naturb, whether the same 

be OS original jurisdiction or OS appellate jurls~lctlon, ., 

over which, by the General Lawe,of the State of Te'xas 

now exlstlng and hereinafter enacted, the county courts 

of said count&es would have had jurisdiction; . . .'I' 

You state that lrlnce the above act'provldes only foi? a 

transfer of the jurladlctlon of the County.'.Court~ andnot of the 

County Judge, you have.doubt as to whether the District Judge has. 

authority to make the appointment of the special commlss~oners. 

We presume that you have ref'erence~ to the,general law (Art. 3264 

(2) R.C.S.) providing for Slllng eminent"domalri proceedings with, 

and appointment of special commissioners by, the county judge. 

You also states that lti all the acts you haiie examined which trank 

Per eminent domain proceedings. from's county-,courto another 

court, you find that both the jurlsdlct$on of the county judge qnd 

that of the county court are transferred. 

The case of City of Dallas :v. Johnson,,.54-S.W. (26)'1024 

(Dallas C.C.Arj 19%‘) Involved the ~qusatlon ralsed~by you,. the 

specific question there under review being whether the Judge of 

the County Court at Law No. 2 In Dallas County had the authqrlty'. 

to appoint special commissioners In condemnation proceedings, the, 

contention being made that the exercise of. such power ,rested alo 

In the county judge. The Court overruled,khls contention and he: !r d

that the grant of jurisdiction over eminent domain proceedings to .,, 

the County Court at Law Included. authority In the Judge of that 

Court to appoint special commlsslonera and :saldz, 

"It appears, therefore, that the county court -~ 

of Dallas county, the county court of Dallas county 

at law No. 1, and the county court of Dallas county 

at law No. 2 have concurrent jurlsdlctlon~ over all 

matters that are prescirlbed by article 1970--3, as 

the jurisdiction OS the county court at law No. 1. 

This grant of jurlsdlct$on includes the specific 

matter under review. ..,...'I 

In the later case of MIers v. Housing Authority & City OS 

Dallas, 266 S.W. 2nd 487, (1954) b f 

ma, the question was raised"thEt'%e 

th C 

J&iy!S g 

t s cl 11 ,., 

Czuntyv 
. - 

Hon. Jamee Ii. Doherty page 3 (WW 785) 

Court at Law No. 1 had no jurisdiction to try the can& because he 

was pot the County Judge. The Court disposed OS this question by 

one &hort paragraph reading as follows:. 

"Arts. 1970--3, 1970-4, 1970--16, have been 

Interpreted to mean that the County Courts of Dallas 

County at Law Nos. 1 and 2 have jurisdiction to try 

condemnation suits. City of Dallas v. Johnson, Tex.- 

Clv.App., 54 S.W.2d lbia,‘iit. ‘jia’g’e’ ibi&~tie 

_. 

appellant’s point one.” 

overrule 

We also call attention to the emergency clause of the act 

In question which recites the fact that the judges of the county 

courts of the two counties of Sablne and San Augustine are burdened with business Including eminent domain proceedings. 

You ‘are advised that in our opinion the District Court 

OS Sablne and San Augustine GountIes, and the Judge thereoi, .has 

comp1et.e jurisdiction over eminent domain proceedings In r%ld 

countie8. Therefore, the petitions or statements In coudelrmatlon should be Sll,ed with, and the, apeolal commissioners; appolnttid 

by, said judgi, and the award OS the commlssloners,, In the abeenoe 

of objections, should be made the jadguient of tt&Dletrlct Court. ,,, 

3uMNA.m ” 

Under Chapter, 7, A&s cif, the ‘Second Called 

Seuslon of the 56th ,Leglslature, 1959, 

(V.A.,C.S. Art. 1970-310) In ,Sablne and San 

Augustine Co&t&es,, ,,petltlons or statements 

In eminent domain prodeedlngs are to be 

Slled with,‘and appointment OS special commisdionere are to be made by, the District 

Judge, and the award of the special commissioners, in, the,aba@nce of objections, Is to 

be made the judgment of the District Court. 

,Youra very truly, 

WILL WILSON, 

Attorney Qeneral . , 
Hon. James H. Doherty page 4 (WW 785) 

-APPROVED: 

OPINION CO!@UTTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

w. Ray scruggs 

Donald Bernard 

Charles Cabanlss 

Leon Pesek 

F@VIEWEDFORTHEA!M'ORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore 

,