The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-08
FROM THE CAPITAL CITY
What Should Be Done With q Defunt Cor.
poralion Assets
TESTIMONIAL TO GOVERNOR ]. D..sAYtRs
HiEh Estccm Of Fellow Committed
men Set Forth In scnorial--Is-
sues of Bonds Approved.

Austin. Texas. April THE following
self-explanatory opinion was sent out from
the attorney generals office today:
MIR. w. w. Cook. County Attorney. Hemp
stead. Texas.
Attorney Generals ofnco. Austin. Tex
as. April e.--Dear Sir: In your favor OF
the LIST instant to this department, you
say:
The city of Hampstead has abolished
her corporation under article 615 OF the
Revised Statutes. This question Is, who
ie tto) turn over the books and property
OF the city to the county, and what coun-
~ officers are they turned over to-? There
Ia money In the city treasury set aside to
pay off bonds given TO pay for the city
| school house who Is to receive this
money! and from whom does he receive
it,"
Article 6l5. Revised Statutes, was
amended by the Twenty-fifth legislature.
chapter 1871, page 1888, but ! suppose this
In no wise affects the dissolution OF the
corporation OF tho city OF Hampstead, as
undertaken by said corporation. The act
Of April 10. 1891. laws OF the Twenty sec
ond legislature, page 90. now article GIG.
the disposition of property belonging TO
an abolished or defunct corporation In
that such property shall be turned over
to the county treasurer OF the county, aud
the commissioners court OF the county
shall provide for the sale and disposition
OF the same etc. was in the case OF Elec-
trlc Light Company vs.. keenan, ct al, In
an opinion rendered on the 26th day OF
April. 1895. declared unconstitutional
tSS Texas, 20i), the court declaring that
the powers which the legislature may re-
auire Of the commissioners court to ex-
ercise are confined by the constitution TO
county business and that the admlnistra-
ton OF the effects OF a dissolved corpora
ton and the payment of its debts are not
such business. The Twenty-hfth legisla-
ture acts 1897, page Ca amended article
GIG, Revised Statutes 1895, and tho amend
cd article which repeals article GIG, Re-
vised Statutes, 1895. reads In part as fol-
lows: Article 6l6. when any corpora
ton is abolished as provided In articles
Glib and 6i7c OF the Revised Statutes. or
II any de facto corporation shall be de-
clared void by any court OF competent
jurisdiction. OF IL the same shall cease to
operate and exercise the functions of such
do facto corporation, all the property,
etc" and the amendment in so far as
the disposition OF the property Is con-
cerned proceeds In identically the same
language contained In article GIG. Revised
Statutes. 1895. and which portion OF said
article the court directly passed upon ID
the case of Electric Light Company VS..
Keenan,. above cited, and II said article
was unconstitutional In the one instance
j am unable to see why II Is not In the
other, although the amendment was sub
seduent to the date of the opinion rem
dered In said case. | con. therefore, only
conclude that unless the commissioners
court would voluntarily consent to accept
the administration OF the affairs of the
defunet corporation. II can not be forced
upon 1t. However. should the commits
sicners court agree to do 80, the question
presents itself ms to whether Its action
would be legal In the caEo OF Electric
Light Company Va. keenan,, supra. the
court intimates that tho commissioners
court might have tho power to do an
act which is not Its legal duty to per-
form. aud cites the case OF Brown vs.
Wheclook. rs Texas 1856.
Article Gid. Revised Statutes, 1895, also
provides for the disposition OF the prop
erty of dissolved corporation, but was
also repealed by implication by the
amendment OF 1897. and II not II would
be subject to the same constitutional OBJ
lection as article 6i6, as also would be
article Gig. II there are any other pro-
visions in our laws for the disposition OF
property belonging to a dissolved cor
p ration, they have escaped my notice,
and am therefore of the opinion that
such dissolved corporation Is without the
remedy of valid law. so far as the dis-
position OF Its property after dissolution Is
concerned. and while the comm sioners
court might voluntarily assume, II the
same were turned over to It. to adm lnister
the property and while its acts might be
legal, do not feel called upon to express
an opinion as 10 the liability of the city
officer on his bond. should he SO turn
such property In his custody over 10 the
commissioners court. Yours very truly,
T. S. Johnson