E OIZNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
Bnmreble c. I<.Ford county Attorney San Saba County ssn Sabs, Texas
Dear sir: op-i,nion o-y4F,i: IS!: Establishmentof hospital by precinct
We have receivedyour letterof October6, 1946,which we quote, in part, as follows:
"The Commissioner'sCourt and CountyJudge oi'this countyhas requestedthat I send you my opinionon the questionof a precinctof ttiiscountyestablishing, equiping,maintaining,and operatinga hospjtzl thr::u&a vote on bonds and a tax for such purposes; and ask that you Give me EI~opinionon the matter."
"The ayin:;voters of a county may petitionsuch court t3 :~rov',9e ?or the establishingor enlargingof a county hospital,in which event said courtwithin the time 4esi~wte.5in such petitionshall submit to such voters at a specialor regularelectionthe proposition of Issuingbonds in such aggregateamount as may be desisated in said petitionfor the establishing01 er,largIngof such hospital. Wheneverany such propositionshall receivee majorityof the voters cf t2e qualifiedpropertytax payers voting at such election, said commissionerscourt shall establishand maintain such hospitaland shell have the following2owers: 7, . . . Hon. C. K. Ford - page #2 O-7458
"4. To issue countybonds to providefunds for the establishing, enlargingand equippingof said hospitaland for all other necessarypermanentimprovementsin connectiontherewith; to do all other things that may be requiredby law in order to rendersaid bonds valid. * . . .* (Emphasisadded)
It is evidentthat if this articleauthorizesthe establishmentof a hospitaland the issuanceof hospitalbonds by a precinctof the county,then the word "county"includes"precinct."However,we believe it obviousthat this was not the legislativeintent.
It is well-settledthat the power to issuenegotiablebonds is beyond the scope of power of a municipalcorporationunless it is speciallygrantedby law, and that any doubt as to such power will be resolvedagainst its existence. City of Brenhamv. GermanAmericanBank, 144 U. S. 173, 549; Peck v. City of Hempstead,65 S. W. 653; 30 Tex. Jur. 402.
In the case of Eellv. Pulte, 10 9. W. (2d) 694 (Corn. App.), the court had the followingto say:
*The power to issue negotiablepaper for public improvements, or for money borrowedfor the purposeof acquiringsuch improvements,is a power which is regardedas being beyond the scope of power of the governingbody of a city or county unless it be speciallygranted. This extraordinarypower, when granted,can be exercisedonly in the mode and for the purposesspecifiedin the grant. Foster v. City of Waco, 113 Tex. 354, 255 S. W. 1104."
It is clear, upon a readingof Article 4478, et seq., and the original act as passeaby the Legislaturein 1913 (Acts 33rd Leg. Ch. 39), that only a county-wideapplicationwas intended. Nowhere in the act is a precinctauthorizedor empoweredto establisha hospital.
It will be noted that in Article 752a, Vernon'sAnnotatedTexas Statutes, authorizingthe issuanceof road bonds.,the words "county,or any politicalsubdivisionof a county"are used. If "county'includedits politicalsubdivisions, then the inclusionof "or any political subdivisionsof a county"would have been pointless. We hold, however, that the politicalsubdivisionwould not have had that power without the specificauthorization.The authoritiescited above amply