*- ..
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 Oonnalrelonersand render6 Judgments In EmI- nent Domain Prodeedlngs Inmnneugu8tIne and Sablne '. l
Dea r lb r ? Do h e r fa w
We .haveJrourletter In which you request an opinion 18 mllow~r : ~%der S.& 'Na.19,~ 56th iegialature;t&d, Cillod V.A~.C:S. Arty. 1970-310, ~cimcernlng~ eminentT 8Jeerlon, 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 atiahappointment,Ia,the SInal decltilonof iuch ~aom&rlone~, wider existing.law, made the judgment o? the county or the,d,lstriotcourt? Stitsd~'another'uay, Is the petItIon norrtatemant 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 ,foundat Pages90 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. !SheeoUnty courts of the Counties OS Sablne and San AquatIne shall retain and oontlnue-to have aad exercise the general arinclnaljurlsdlctlon, both orlgltil ah@ appellate, and the general jurladlc- tion of ,probstecourts, and 'all jurledictlonother than in civil mattera, Including eminent domaIn~j&lsdlction OS which Ia,hers conies-redon ,thedistrict otirt Sor ~8aId countlee, now or hereinafter conferred upon such county oourts ,by the Constltutlonand 'lawsof the state, and shall retain all juflsdlctlonand 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,said bounty o&t8 shall ~~ have no civil jurisdiction,except as to Mnal judgments reterred to In Section 2 hereof, "Section2. The district court OS tpe Firs+ Judl- clal District having jurisdictionIn said~Countlesof Sabi;neand 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 jurisdictionor 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 lrlncethe above act'provldes only foi?a transfer of the jurladlctlonof the County.'.Court~ and not of the County Judge, you have.doubt as 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"domalriproceedingswith, and appointmentof special commissionersby, the county judge. You also statesthat ltiall the acts you haiieexamined which trank Per eminent domain proceedings.from's county-,courtto 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 ~qusatlonralsed~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 commissionersIn condemnationproceedings,the, contentionbeing made that the exercise of.such power ,restedalo