Tmx A-rroxa~~Y GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Au- il. - 

January 24, 1948 

Hon. Roy C. Snodgrass 

County Attorney 

potter county 

Amarillo, Texas 

0p1Ill0n no. v-484 

Re: Authority of Commissloners Court of Potter 

County to expend money 

fromtheRoad&Brldge 

Fund to improve city 

etreeta. 

Attention: Hon. Johu Peterson 

Asst. County Attorney ' 

Deer Mr. Snodgrass: 

.Your request for an opinion of this department 

&leting to .the,expendlture of fun&s from the Road enil 

Bridge Fund oft Potter County in the improvement 'of certain streets in the City of Amarillo is sulmtsntial&y 

fol~lows: 

"The Conmiissloiers Court.desirea to know 

whether or hot they aan legally expend moxiey 

froa~.the road and briiie fund~on ~cdrtaln streets 

within the City of eil&o and I am aending you 

under aeparatti ccver a map which inoludea the 

greater portion of Potter County, Texas, and 

shows all. county roads and olty streets and 

which map has marked on 1% the road8 desired 

tb be improved. 

. 

a8 

"The roads to be iinproved are: 

"At the Qlemiood School, 

24th Street from Cleveland to Miwor, 

Mirror Street from24th to 25th, I 

25th Stre~et Srom .Slirror to Cleveland. 

'At ha Senb&n School 

8th Street from Ho&d to Mirror, 

Mirror Street from 7th to 8t@, :. 

Roberta Street rrom 6tbto 8th, 

7th Sttieet from Roberts to Wlllia@., 

Wllll~s Street from 7th to 8th, 
Hon. Roy C. Snodgrass, page 2 (v-484) 

8th Street from Williams to Ross. 

“At the Dwight Morrow School, 

16th Avenue from Arthur to Houston. 

“The tentetive,agreement Is as follows: 

The City of Amarillo will pay for the excavating atid grading of the roads. The school districts will pay for the topping of the roads. 

The property owners will pay for the curb and 

gutter work and the County will pey for the 

calliche and for putting it on the ground. 

“We would like to point out some addi- . 

tlonel facts: 

“(1) Thst all of this work Is to be 

done in Precinct #l and be,tter than gC$ of 

the road and bridge fund Is made up from 

automobile license fees paid by residents 

of Precinct #L 

“(2) Thet better.tban gC$ of the people of Potter County reside in Precinct #l. 

“(3.) That.the road improvements to be 

-,done are eround,and fitiai,thr.ee achools~and 

that’ students of these schools in some 3nsjx.ncix come from other preolncts~-and during 

the winter months, the roads not beinghisrd~ 

tkrfaced creates an -bearable sltuati6n.~ 

"(4) Numerous people in the City of ~. 

Imarillo have polnted out to the ~Comm.lssioIiera Court the inequity~ in their ~ml.r&~ of not 

being~~able to spend oounty road end bridge 

funds ror street& in the City of Amarillo in 

Precinct,#l where,over. gC$ of the money in 

making up the fund comes from, except on. 

main a.rteries through the city whlch~ oonnect 

with Foads Coming into'the city limits and 

which roads are slpeady Improved ade&ately.. 

“In view of the above *set. out ?a$& the 

Coomlasloners Court aubml$s to you the question .of whether or not the county road and 

bridge fund can be spent oti th6 Greet& enumerated and set out above and designated on 

the map furnished you and under ‘the rrc+adi-tiotls 

reflected in the faot aitu+q,n set out above.n 

.- 

0 inion No. V-261, addressed to you, dated 

June 23, 19 & 7, held that County Road and Bridge Funds 
Hon. Roy C. Snodgrass, page j (V-484) 

, 

may be expended in the Improvement of city streets with 

the consent of said city, provided auoh streets ace an 

integral part of the county road system, citing City of 

Breckenrldge v. Stephens County, 40 S. W. (24) 43, and 

Hughes v. County Commissioners Court of Harris County, 

35 s. w. (26) 818. The question now presented is whether the ConrPiasloners Court of Potter County has the 

authority to improve streets in the City of Ama~lllo 

which a0 not form an integral part or the.county road 

system of said county. It is assumed from your factual 

sltuatlon, aa well as the map attached thereto, that 

the streets in question are not city streets forrping a 

part of the aounty road system of Potter County. 

In the ca8e of Uilliams v. Carrolf, 182 S; W. 

29, the court held that a stre6t geperelly-metis si pasaageway within the bocuids of 8 municipal corporation, 

while a road means a county highway forming a emoation between the alty limits of one oity or town and 

the city limits of another city or town: and tmile a 

~street is a himay iti LS not +eoesaarlJy true~.that a 

hlghway.+s a street. 

As to th&qnesiXon of.eiclusive jplrlbdlctlon 

over atriets, tti court In Oabbept v. City of Bro~ood, 

~. 176 s. Wi (26) +4, sga~ea 68 follows:. 

"'In i8gl this~.same ~questionwas~.8gain 

presented :in B mf00a vi..@onsaleS County, 

79 Tex. 218,.1 & s..~Y.,lO57; 1058, 'wherein 

the Su~eme~CoUrt d@olaxe$ that the.adm+. 

miasiotieral.oourt was without juriatictlon 

tq opeh up a road. through ~lana iitbin th8 . . 

.oorporate lhltp of the olty of aoliaa. 

mat the wora.juri.saicti~ wag used :aa- I 

v$aedly Sa shown by t$~'holalnga that.*.,; 

prooeedings~~were without effect and in: 

oapable of ra$.~floation, even aiter the 

exclusion of the psrtioular aeotion of-, :. 

the road from the olty ,liri$s,~ there-~ 

placing it withLn.the juri8aiatbn or'the 

~aomisslone~ta oourt. Thlb reeult&.l.oi~ 

oourfse, from the familiar prlnolple that 

whatiever La, voWas ~diatinguishea froth ', ~. 

-.. 

merely voidable, oamot Abe valldate&bg 

ratification. -.The.declsion in Borw+v,. 

Oonzalea County, aupra, has~so far as we. 

know, x&eve? been:overruled and has been 

followed in the following oases: Benat 
Hon. Roy C. Snodgrass, page 4 (v-484) 

v. Dall.as County, Tex. Clv. App., 266 S. 

W. 539, writ refused, Rueter v. State, 

43 Tex. Cr. R. 572, 67 S. W. 505; Blultt 

v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 121 S. W. 

168, dissenting 0 lnlon; 

83 Tex.~Cr. R. 

cowana v. State, 

29 f; , 202 s. W. 961; City 

of Breckenrldge v. Stephens County, Tex. 

Clv. App., 26 S. W. 24 405. It la true 

that the last mentldned case (by this 

court) was reversed by the Supreme Court, 

but that in so doing that cburt ala not 

overrule the Noruooa caSe is clearly 

shown by the following quotation from 

the opinion: 'Of course, the town or 

city governing board primarily has paramount jurlsalctlon of the streets and 

highways thereof, and the commlssloners~ 

court would have no authority to improve 

streets or highwaya wlthin'munlcipalitles 

In conflict. with the jurisdiction of the. 

city to improve the SBBIB.~" 

Article 6703, Vernon's Clvll Statutes, provides with reference to Comndssioners~ Court that: 

1, 

c&&l 

said court shall assume and 

have 0s the streets aad alleys In 

all cities and Incorporated towns in Texas 

which have no defacto municipal government 

in the active discharge 0s their 0rritai 

duties.'! 

The aeclalons of the Texas courts have repeeitealy held that the Commlssloners~ Court is a court of 

limited jurlsdi&+lon and has only such powers aa are conferred upon it by the statute! and Conatltutlon of this 

State, either by expressed terms or by neoessary lmpllcation. Section 18 of ArtiOle V, of the Texas Constltution, Article 2351, V. C. S.; Vbn Rosenberg v. Lovett, 

173 S. W. 508; Galveston H. 6s S. A. Ry. Co. v. Uvalde 

County, 167 S. W. (26) 1084; 11 Tex.,Jur. 564. 

By virtue of the fact that the jurisdiction of 

city streets 1s vestea~ exclusive1 

1 

in the City Qovernment and in the absence of author ty granting to Commlealoners' Courts authority over st.reets in Said cities, 

1t.i.s the opinion of this Department that those streets 

in Amsrlllo whloh a0 not form an integral part 0s the 

county road system or connecting llhks ln oounty rqaas, 
Hon. Roy C Snodgrais, page 5 (v-484) 

may not be improved or repaired by expenditures from 

the road ana bridge runa of said oounty. 

In your opinion request you state that it is 

inequitable not to be able to spend the county road and 

bridge fund for streets in the City of Amarillo in Precinct #l since at least 90$ of the money oomes from said 

precinct. This Department is not ii~ a position to give 

an opinion as to the dlvlslon of funds inasmuch as the 

same Is left to the sound discretion of the Commlsslonera' Court. Suffice it to say that as long as the Commissioners' Court exercises its beat judgment and do&a 

not act arbitrarily in regard thereto, its findings wiJ.1 

not be disturbed. In this connection we are enoloalng 

copies of Attorney General's Opinions Ros. O-1091 and 

v-347., 

while we are in accord that your factual situtation reflects a hardship, nevertheless, an examlnatlon and review of all the statutes. relating thereto do 

not infer the existence of authority.to Improve city 

streets not a part 0s the county road system but indicates the contrary. .If, in the future, your factual 

situation is such that roads are oonstpucted by the 

county and leaa,to the streets in question in such a 

manner that they necessarily become a part of the county mad system sufficient authority may exist for im-. 

proving the streets as a part of the system. However, 

the duty of supplying such authority for the improvement of the streets in ydur factual situation is vested wholly with the Legislature. ( 

SUMMARY 

A CommlsslonersS Court may not legally 

expend funds from the road and bridge fund 

of a county in the improvement 0s city streets 

wlthln a city which do not'form a part of the 

caunty road system or conneotlng links in a 

county road. 

Yours very truly 

APPROVRD: 

F&T ASSISTANT 

A- WRERAL 

BW:mv -encl. 

ATTORREP OBlt?XUL OF TEXAS 

Burnell Waldrep 

Assietant