*-

. .



### 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

De ar l b r? Dohe rf aw

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.tothe 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 petItIonnorrtatemant 19 wrItIng oheking the appointment,?fsuch 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, pertinentprovlrlonsof whlah~readae’S~llo?rcI:

“Section1. !She

eoUnty courts of the CountiesOS 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 ‘alljurledictlonother than in civil mattera, Including eminent domaIn~j&lsdlction OS which Ia,

hers conies-red

on ,the district otirt Sor **~8aId** countlee,now or hereinafterconferredupon such county oourts ,bythe Constltutlonand ‘laws of the state, and shall retain all juflsdlctlonand power to lpsue .~. writs neoesaary to the enforcement0s~ thelr~ jur5.ndlctldn,Hon. James Ii. Doherty Page 2 (w 785) .,

., and to punish contempt;'but, said bounty o&t8 shall contempt;'but, ~~ have no civil jurisdiction, except as to Mnal judgments jurisdiction, judgments reterred to In Section 2 hereof, reterred Section hereof, "Section2. The district court OS tpe Firs+ Judlclal Districthaving jurisdictionIn 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 exlstlngand hereinafterenacted, the county courts of said count&eswould have had jurisdiction;

. . .'I'
You state that lrlnce the above act'provldesonly foi? a transfer of the jurladlctlon of the County.'.Court~ and not of the County Judge, you have.doubtas to whether the District Judge has. authority to make the appointmentof the special commlss~oners. We presume that you have ref'erence~ to the,generallaw (Art. 3264 (2) R.C.S.)providing for Slllng eminent"domalri proceedings

with, and appointmentof special commissioners by, the county judge. You also states

that lti

all the acts you haiie examinedwhich trank Per eminentdomain proceedings. from's county-,court o another court, you find that both the jurlsdlct$onof 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~byyou,.

the specificquestion 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, contentionbeing made that the exercise of. such power ,rested

alo In the county judge. The Court overruled,khls contentionand he:

d !r that the grant of jurisdictionover eminent domain proceedingsto .,, 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$onincludes 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 questionwas 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 jurisdictionto try the can& because he was pot the County Judge. The Court disposed OS this questionby one &hort paragraphreading as follows:.

"Arts. 1970--3, 1970-4, 1970--16,have been Interpretedto mean that the County Courts of Dallas County at Law Nos. 1 and 2 have jurisdictionto try condemnationsuits. 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 questionwhich recites the fact that the judges of the county courts of the two counties of Sablne and San Augustineare burdened with business Includingeminent domain proceedings.

You ‘are

advised that in our opinion the District Court OS Sablne and San AugustineGountIes, and the Judge thereoi,.has comp1et.e

jurisdiction

over eminent domain proceedingsIn r%ld countie8. Therefore, the petitions or statementsIn 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 AugustineCo&t&es,, ,,petltlons or statements In eminent domain prodeedlngsare to be Slled with,‘andappointmentOS special commisdionere are to be made by, the District Judge, and the award of the special commissioners, in,

the,aba@nceof 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

,