Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas 31. 1984 hguet JIM MATTOX Attorney General
SupruIn cowl BulldIng Honorable Grant Joam Opinion No.JH-200 P. 0. Box 12s4s ChairMU *u*lln.T~ 78711. 2546 Be: Whether a county may uac Plnatxc Comittee 512/47$2m Texao State Senate county l quipmant and machinery Telex 9lom741387 P. 0. Box 12068. Capitol Station to uaiotain roads In rural 1eieocplw SlzI47w266 subdivirriooa Austlu. Texan 78711 714Jackm.Sulle oen*s. TX. 7s2024sos [700] Dear Senator Jones:
2lu742e.944
You ark whether the Burnet County comiealonera court ray uac
county l qulp8ent and machinery to uriatalu roads lo rural subdlvlaioaa. Parriculrrly. you aak the followlnS queatlons: 1. Utlst action 1s necessary to authorize a county to maintain a roadway in a rural sub- 10011*xar,sun9700 dlvislonl’ Hour1on. lx. 77oQ2~111
71- 2. III the fIllaS of a mbdivielon pkt vhlch
purport6 to ‘hereby dedicate the roeda. etreete. peeeagewl~re, end ll alleye ohown thereoa to the ao806Broadw4y.sun4312 Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 uri of .tlw public forever’ sufficient to authorize mw7476pI) county rdntesuuce of tho8e roadways? You inform UI that an lajunctloa was grented in 1971 prohibiting
008 N. TeMh, S&e B the comlseloaera court of Bumet Comzty from udag county equlpmeut l4cAnm. TX. 7sso14tlss s12a824547 and uchiaery to n &~taln private roada. Baaed 011 this injunction. Burnet.COMty kar ccfumcd :to ulntaln roada ia rural aubdlvisionr. Z$OOUrrOplurSUlt4400 Oa April 22, 1972, bdlvlaion plet waa filed purport&g to qnAnlonb.TX. 78205.2707 “hereby dedicate the reeds, treets, pamageueys, and a11 lleys showa s12J22m101 thereou to the use of the public forever.” All qwlopplunlty/ l%e Tcru Cuwtitutim authorizes the leglalature to provide for Afflnnellw Acllon Empbyet the conetructloa rod rlntenence roads. See Tex. Coast.
art. VIII. 99; art. XI. 92; art. XVI, 924. Underthie grent of authority, the lellelature heo delegeted to coalreionerr courte the generel pwer to “(llay out ud atabllsh. chanSe and diacontinua public roada and hlghveys.” l ud to “(e]xerclee general control over all roads. highva:r~~, ferries end bridge6 la thclr countiee.” V.T.C.S. art. 2351(3) In addition to theoe general powera. and (6). comle8loner~ court8 are given further and more deteflcd povcro over *2 Honorable Craat Jonas - Page i, (Jn-200)
the coaatructlon and maintenance of public roads by the enactment of the County Road and Bridge Act. V.T.C.S. ert. 6702-l. The act glvaa cmssionera court* uthorii:)! to and enforce all reasonable and (1) uke
neceaaary rule* e~vl ordere for the conatructlon and uimteaauce of public road6 except ae prohibited by law; (2) hire the labor and purchase the machinery end equipment needed to conattuct and uintain public roadr. . . ,
V.T.C.S. art. 6702-l. i2.002(1~).
In the exerkae thio wthority , comlssioner~ court0 cannot go beyond the powers either expr~csoly granted or aeces~arlly implied from lenguege of the grant. Canales v. Laughlin. 214 S.U.2d 451 (Tex. 1948). Uhlle.coasliaaionere 'kurto have broad dlecretion In exercising powero expreaaly conferred on them. nevertheless the beeis for any action aunt be ultimately fcund in conetltutlon or atatutea. Id. - at 453.
Except in circumatancea not pertinent here, comtisdoners courts are not conetitutionally 01: statutorily authorized to construct or ulntain prlvete roada. Purthermore. case lav expressly prohibit6 the use of "county kbor. utexals or equipment for other than public uae.m Godley v. Duval Ceunl~!. 361 S.W.Zd 629. 630 (Tax. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1962. mo writ). Since ao besicl for the construction or maintenance of,privete roada fs found.in the conetltutlon or atetuteo. ctiedonero court mey not exerclae Mach power. . ..- authorized by the ceurte re expreaaly . Nowever. cdeioeere County-Road and Bridge Act:to constxwct end uhtein roaddr in their countleo. The Tuam Iklpreme Court set out the bemlc principlea for determining vben a road becomes a public road, teting:
All roado,vhl& have been laid out and l atabllshed by authority' of r:he camni~eioners' courte re $ubllc roada . . , . A road not orl@nally .eotabli&ed under the statute mey become public by long-continued URIC end doptioe a euch by county comlulon~wa vith the aoent of the owner A road may al80 become et by preecript4an. public. in aenee that the public have the u#e it. by dedication. right
p. 880
Nonorablc Crent Jonas - Page 3 (JH-200)
Worthington v. Wade. 17 S.U. 520. 521 (Tex. 1891). These principlea have been carried forward into modern case law, and a-hat elaborated.
Beelcelly. there are thr,ee way. a road may become public ouch that a county till have l uthority to uintein it. Firat. e road can be l atabllahed l b lnltlo aa a public road upon a comlaoioners court's ouu motim. Doughty 'I. DePec,, 152 S.U.2d 404. 409 (Tex. Clv. APP. - Amarillo 1941. writ ref'd v.<~.m.). or in rerpouse to an epplicatiou thcrefor by the requisite number of freeholderr under the provleions of l rticle 6702-l - l procedure which requlrea coudemation and avardlng of damage*. V.T.C.S. art. 6702-l. 812.003 and 2.004. Second, a public road may be estebll~~hed by premrlptloo. In thla eituatlon.
It ia oecessery to #how that an "uninterrupted u8er of the wey hes been made by the ~public. uutler au adverse claim of right. for the l tdutoty period of Ualtr,tion." Ladle.' Benevolent Society of Beaumont v. UagnolicCmete~~ Co.. 288 S.U. 812. 815 (Tat. Corn''' APP.
1926. judgrt adopted). PinaiK l road uy become a public road by dedication. a setting epert by the fee owner for public use. and acceptance. See Hellbron v., St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas, 113 S.W.10. 612 (Tex: Clv. App. 1908).
Thus. In ansver to your f'lrst, question. we conclude that e county lo authoriced to maintain raalweya in rural l bdlvloiono if the roads were eetabli~hed eb inltlo em public road8 by the coaisaiouers court, by prescription. or by dedlumlon end l cceptance by the county.
You l leo ask whether the filing of l subdivision plat which "dedlcate~ the reeds. ,etreets. paaaagevaym and all purporta alleya ; . . to% the ~u#e Of the public forever" la aufflclent to l uthorlxe~ c ounty uintauxicc of tho r r oadtm ya. To effect l proper dedlutkss-of .~knd .to public-or, -the owner umt uke l offer of 'dedlcatlon, uh$@;m8< be qwpted. There are tvo kinda of dedlutloo - statutory .and comon-hv. A statutory de&atiom la 'one ude lo conformity vith the
provlaloas of the mtatutea coaprioing Texas ubdlviolon control. The reylatory chac depends upnl the recordetloa of a developer's up or plat. Article 6626e. V.T.C.8.. providea that no plat of ny mbdivlalon lull be filed rmleoe it lo uthorimd by amrt . After approvel. the plet lo filed In the office coul~olonera of the county clerk of county in vhlcb land liea. Art. 6626a.
12. The edwloners court, la authoriced to vitbhold plat pproval If a mzbmltted plet doea nolc meet the rmqulreaanto of the act. Art.
6626e. 94. But. if cam&aoionera court doem not dloapprove the plat or doea not refuse to rwthorlre the filing of mch plet in the county elerk'e office vh~a deciding whether a plat “meet0 the rcquiremente ae eet forth it1 this Act,” the comierionem court in effect approvea plet end authoriree its film whether it etemps
. e*,
Nonoreblc Grant Jonee - Page 4 (Jll-200)
” approved end uthorlaed” ou the plat or vhether it stamps “not dleepproved and not unauthorlxed” thereon. Attorney General Opinion Vu-1438 (1962).
If the 8ubdlvlder complies with the provleioue of article 6626a. em authoriced .fllirtS by the ctieelonere court become8 l “mere ~iulsterial duty, the perfc~tmance of which may be compelled by Coliedonere Caret 0. Frank Jester Development Co., 199 mNdaN8.” S.W.Zd 1004, 1007 (Ten. Civ. r$p. - Dallee 1947. writ ref’d n.r.e.1.
&WXI-~W dedication8 are of two claoeea - crpreaa and i=pllad. Ladlea’ Danevolent Society ,:I Beaumont v. llagoolla Cemetery Co., maupra, at -814. In both. It ie neceeeary that there be en appropriation of had by the ovner to public use. ln the one cane, by come esprea8 manlfestetlor of hio purpoee to devote land to public use; In the othr,.by eiome act or course of conduct from which the law would imply +uch an kltent. Id. LonS-contlnued uae by the public la mfflclmt to imply ,B dedicaa by the ovner. <City of Uaco v. Fenter, ,132~ S.W.Zd 636. f,37 (TN. Clv. App. - Waco 1939, writ ref’d).
8weverI to render a dedication complete. there must be an acceptance of the dedlcatloa. Cotieeloners’ Court v. Frank Jester Development Co.. e. et 11306. An acceptance, too. may be urpreea or implied. A ~eeioaera court expreesly accept8 a dedication vhen It vote8 on end note8 scceptance In the minutes. Bowever, mere flli.nS and apprwal of l aubdiviaion plat ahowing etreeta to be dedicated doe. not conatltu::e en acceptance. Id. et 1007. An cuptame may he implied, for Inetance. from the cG&y’o feilure to aeeeee ~for taee io. comecr::ion with “1eyinS Sea and water mains. &mildl.nS-•ideval.ka.Gor .gredisl for 8treete.” City of Waco v. Fenter, m. et 63S. or uhere’.e county~makee repair8 upon *the street. or : pIat it on.official map8. d1lder.v. City Branbam~3 S.U. 309. 311
(TN. 18871. An wxe8tmce-bv al80 be irmlled fra lona-tlnued /Ibert v. Gulf, C. 6 S.P. IteilGay Co.. 21 we-of the p&p&. 4.U. 779,:78o~(Tes. civ. *pp. - 1893, no writ). .in l euer your .eecond que8tion. the filinS of e BNM.,
8ubdlvieion plat alone ie lneufflcient to uthorlae e county to malntein road8 in rural 8ubd.ivlelooa, 8lnce the dedication 18 a mere offer. M88lonera’ Court-v. Frank Jester Development Co., e.
et 1007.
We note that the injuacc::lon in Buraet County, vbich prohibit8 the me of county equipment for, mdatenaoce of Private roada. doe8 not lter county’8 authority to maintain public roads.
p. 882
. I
Honorable Grant Jones - Page 18 (JH-200)
A ccm~lssioncrs court may we county equipment and uchincry to maintain roade in rural eubdivleiono if th, roads were cetabliehed ab lnitio ee public row16 by the coaaieaionere court.
by prcecriptlon, or by dedication and acceptance.
UATTOX Attorney General Texas TOM GREFaN Firat Assistant Attorney Genersl
DAVID R. RICRARDS
Executive Aesiatant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Cllpln
Assietant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMHITTEE
Rick Gilpin. Chairmen ,
David Brooks
Colln Carl
SUM0 Gmrison
Jim Woellinger
Nancy Sutton