Case Information
*1 161 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Honorable X. S. Rowe
County Attorney, Lamb County
Littlefirld, Texas
Dear Sir1
W4 aokuowl4dg4 r404lpt
data, and qaoto tram your 14
county i8 eon- aultural Building, from ths County Seat nay I ham be413 ro- your D4partmont,aa osition; Therefore will you the questions as iollorrr onor Court of Lamb County have let a oontraot for th4 oonetruotion of al Building in whlah to,house the County A. A. A. Offl4e4, 4aid building to be
in a town not tho County Sect of aald d would said Court hare the authorfty to Wazrante, in the 4um of $ZO,OOO.OO, in payment for the conatruotlon of au4h a building.
2. Would the Commissioners Court of Lamb County, hato urpoao of dstermln- authority to order an elootion for the ing whether or not Bonds in the sum of 20,OOO.OO should be e 144ued for the oonrrtruotion of an Agrioultural Building, in which to houa4 the County Agent, and the Trip14 A. oTfiO44; said building to be oonstruoted in 4 town not the County seat of said oounty.”
I..
Honorable El 0. Rowe, Page 2
i
The courts of this State hale repeatedly held that a
oountp oannot issue bonds unl4ss suoh powor la ozprossly oonferred by law. Su4h is the sstablishsd dootrlno in this State, and has boon tram an early time. It was aiflrmod in the original appeal from San'PatrioIo County Vs. MoClane, 44 Tex. 392, and reiterated in Roblson vs. Rroedlooe, 61 Tex. 316; also in L4sater vs. Lopez, 217 5. W. 376.
It is also a well establishsd rule of law in this State that a oountg subjsot to the expresssd restriotions imposed by the Constitution and general laws has the implied power to 188~4 time warrants In payment ror improvements whioh j& is [4] authorized to oonstruot, provided the applioable rcgulat on8 ro- -F lating to t~~ssuanoe oi suoh warrants are observed. (Straton vs. CommIssion4rs~Court 0r Kinney County, 137 5. W. 1170; Cowan st al va. Dupreo, ot al, 139 9. w. 887; Commissionors~ Court or Floyd County ot al vs. Nlohols et al, 142 S. W. 371 Iasstsr vs. Lopez, 217 s. w. 376; Adams vs. YoGIll, 146 S. W. (26) 332.)
We have railed to find a statute in this Stat4 expressly authorizing a oounty to oonstruot the typo bulldIng montlonsd in your request. Thoreroro, it 14 the opinion of this Department, bssed on the foregoing dooisians of of this .State, that th4 oourts 8 oounty do48 not hato the suthority to issue time warrants or bonds . ~\, for the ptipose of oonstruotlng en agrioultural building in whIoh to house the oounty agent and A. A. A. ot?iaes. that this answers your questions, w4 are
Trusting Tory truly yours ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS A,saistant