Case Information
*1 Hon.~Sam Bdn
Countg'AtGrneg
LeOh County.
Centerville, Texas Opinion No‘. 0-1681
Dear Sir: Re: Removal dP the cbUnty seat of Leon County, Texas,‘frGm'Ced%C- iiillb, the present county seat; and related questions.
Youti letter of Fee&t aate~, Pequ&itI~~~the oplniijn of“ fXIs D.epartm@nt on the above matter and related questions, has been received.
We quote, in part, from your rwmnqication: . ,.
"1.~ In base a municipalitj+ bear& the~e'xpdtibe' af building a nsw tiourt house-did movXn&-~the ddnty site does the l&l still~re@iFe'~the msjoliXtg bf -.~~ residelit Wee-holders~to pet-itioir~~t~e'cour~~fijr an &de&tion'&nd ~a0eslt ~still~require~a~2/3-~?or~ty of~the voters PavorIng same to move the court house.
"2 . Wbuld a-'city be permittd under the co - -t: &tIfution"and statutes of this state to Vote bo da creating is debt upon'~the city for the purpose df building a court house for the county.
"3 . Exactly what is a free-holder?" You flirther pbint out ,iii your~letter that CBntWvillle, the piW&n%t cbuntg'seat, is~located‘%ithIii fFve niileKdP"thB~'*'~~ g&ogFaphiC&l center.of the-.doiuity, &&has been the county seat of Leon County for more than forty years. ._
ThG afisWi%r to y-titi rlrst qU&tKon i& feud in the prdvT=' siofik of ArticUd~I595 .atiKl596; RWlsd'Civil~Statutes of Texas. Article 1596, supra, provides in part, as,follows: .
'%fhki a bounty-'seat has been establGh&! fur tiotie thkiii'~fortg yij.5~a, it shi%ll requires& m&JWXty of the resident freeholders ad 'qualified voters.
Hon. Sam Bain, page 2
of sala county to make the application, said majority to’ be ascertalned by the county judge from the assessment rolls thereof.”
The application referred to in this quotation Is that tij the countjr judge, elsewhere ~PoVided ‘for ~in”the ~. ai+ected sthtUte;‘tialllng for~afi~el&ctlon in the county on the issue of the removal of the county seat.
Article 1595, supra, in part, reads as follows: “No county se&t situated within five miles of the geographlcal center of any county she11 be’ ‘removed except’.by ti vote Of two-thirds of all the electors,,in said county voting on the subject; . . . . . . . . . . . .
The condition prefacing your first qutistion; %i ca& is ‘Unicipality bears the expense‘of bI.illaing a iid MuFt~ h6tis6 kid hioving--the countg site;” of cijurse~ .3 would h?ive nd ~eff&X 6ii 1595 and 1596, suppa: ~The qu65tion the eppllcatloii of Articles tif~‘the sninlcipality bearing .dch ‘ejrpense Is discussed in our answer to your second question which follows.
~Th&re is no Inherent Pigtit, tinder the Coli8tFtritio.G ‘bf Texiis, 0f.a tinicipality~ tb isZ3ujuB Its b6nds, ‘Sutiti right-bidfits . _ .‘. IYaYall, titi&r the geni?Pal laws--of ‘the State, i%I the ‘@3poses fi5ir’ wh-ich bombs Mayo be isstied by a municipality are likewise con- trolled by the general laws.
Section 2 of Article 11 of the Texas Constitution, pro- vides :
“Then constructiijn of jails, cMrt-houses and bdsIg6s -aha the establishmeiit of county’pbor tioi~ses iina farms, and the laying”out, coristructlon afia repairing of-~county roads shall be provided for by general laws.” 718, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, provides
Article in part:
“Crjuntg issub& authorized. - After haeing~ ~’ been~ authorlzed as pPovlded in Chapter? ‘1 ‘of this tTtl6, then tiommistiioiMr8 1 coWt of ‘a ‘cduntg tig ltiwfilly is&&the bonds of said county for the following purposes:
“1; To ez%dt the county court house and jail, or either; O~O.OO..~.’
Hon. Sam Baln, page 3
By general laws,/therefore, it Is specifically provided that-county courthouses are to be'construEted by~the county'it- self, for which the bonds of.the caurity may be-lawfullg"iti&iied. There'is no authorization of, or'ptiovislon for, the construc- tion of county courthouses by municipalities.
We think it' obvltiti ~that.the cbn'stivctldli Ma.county Murthtise is'pPlinarily dtinty business-and, as municipal business. conversely, could not be classified
As correctly statlng~ the ~rule~'with~refer&nce tb'the'.'ex- pr&sti and Implied powers bYa nslnlcIpalit we quote from Texas Jurisprudence, Vol. 30, para. 50, page 10 i5r
"The pbv&i?s'bf a muKicipal'corpor&itTon are" d.ther~express oii implId. 'The fotier are thobe vhich~ the legisl&tive act under~~whlc~~they~(txi~t donfers In-.express terms; the'latter are such ati are-necessary in oiler to tiarry~ into eff&Ct~ those exptiessly graiited, and which must, thdrefdre, be presiim&d to hale been Hthifi the IntCtntiM of the legislatiire grant:. SuCh a cotiporatioii c&n exeF cG&those powers and dnlJi~t:hbse powiitis which~.&ire gFantd to IIt in express wOrds; or; @are n&eS&arily br f&'e;itily imijlie&in oF'inciderit to the'ptiwijtiti expr.e%sly granted, 6re'.9Fe esstidtdaf 'to the.bccom- jz2Istidient tiof the declared obj&ts'~an&puFpdsM of %he'tiorporatibn.....' But afi Zmpliea power lrmst' cltii%e outs of~and be appropriate~to the execution 0f.M e%pPesti p'bwer. ma, to infer or iitiplg- power to do a particular thing., IY'nnrst appear-.
not only to be‘convenient', useful and biineficial tom the aariiicipality', but also indIspensable for the dischaFge of the obligations arid purposes oft itti tiorijdrate existence - so-~that without its ex- Stibise an expressed duty of authority would be rendered nugatory......." ,.
The authority of a municipalFtg to issue XtS borias~is f%iiid in Article 823, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which reads:
"Atiy city or towii may issue its coupdn bonds fbF$tich-sum as'itm&y~&e~m expedi&t' for the plirpbse.6f tti&'Eontiti+ucti&'~of ijurctia~~~~of public bii'lldings;~wate~opks;'-.sCtwers, and otti& permanent itipPoii&i%%ts Within the~c~fty limits, Etiid~foe the tioGti%ictibn~&ti imptiovement 'of the'r‘dads; and .StPetits oft sUtih-'citjr br- toen. This'aSLcle in- " eludes building sites-and buildings for the public *4 Hon. Sam Bsin, page 4
free schools and Institution& of learning within tiuch~cities and towns which assume th8 exclusive control of their public free scho'dls anii institu- tions of learning. Such bonds shall bear"'intBr' eat not'to exceed Six per cijnt per annum'and shall become due and payable serially~ or‘~othWwis‘E not t6 8xceea forty years from-.their date and'~may b6‘ payable at such place as may be fixed by ordinance ..~ .
The phrase "for the ptirpoge of'the construction~'or pur- chase of public buildings," dan have~'but'-'one meaning; timely, thdse buildings coining.within the corpoi%t@ f'unctioiis cii'the-" _. munlclpallty.~~ Clearly, this statute does not &xpfie&slg &tithbrz itie'.& tinFCipality to issue~Ilts b6nas'for'.the tionbttititioti 6f.e Runty ctirth-ousti; .it- is eqilallg clear 'that'Suc~~authdri~~-c~n- tio't; b6~~iinplied~~from the ejipres'sed'~p6wers given &Yb&i?& etitien-- tI&l di? necessary to the acc'omplishment of the objects, obli- gations or purposes of the municipality. .
In an analagous sitiiation, we‘.quote froth thB opinioll of the-supreme Court of Indiana in the case 'df Myers Vs. City of 145 1x113. 431, 44 NE 452, as follows: Seffersonville, _ ~_.
-"Money borpowed by'& City to abfraythe eji- peMe of litigation itivolving'the rijnioval of a Uitits se&t; 'and the-'&s% of a lbt iind the build- ping of-a~courthouse ana.aF‘jall for a'66izhty; tie hbld to beg unauthorized; an&bonds issuea'to se- cure the-'money a6 borrowed hiriVe not'such validity in'the haiids~of any holder, as to preclude a citi- zenand taxpayer ~from the'right Of iyjunction to prevent the refunding of such bonds.
Again we quote from the Supreme Court of India?; iti the case bf Schneck VS. City of Jeffersonville, 152 Ind. 212, 52 NE 212, as follows:
"Then clause 'public improvements or public ilorks' cannot be so extended 6r construea as to atithorize the city to reder aid, by donation -. ih locating therein; the seat
lh money or'bonds, of jtistiM end constructing the nec&ssaPg county buildings; and we,atie compelled tom adher to the exposrtidn oft the lail-giv&n in Mjrers vb. City bf Seffersbnville, supPa; that thii clty“was not ifi- v&t&'at~ the time 'withX&gitiltititie authority to ixitiur the indebtedness and issue the bonds in question." .
See also the case of Callam vs. City of Saginaw, 50 Mich. *5 Hon. Sam Baln, page 5
7; 14 NW 677, wherein it was held that a cltjr is unauthorized td borrow money for the purpose of erectia a county court- htiu;le, in the &ib&ence~of'~'&pecific authorization thetiefor oy statute.~ .See also the case of Russell, et al vs. Tate, et al, 13 SW 130, by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Ati we hav& heretofdtie'pointed out;'the Constltiitioti of T&x&s' provides that the cotistruction of courthouse* shall be proviaed for by general laws. Such~proviiion IS made by Article 718;supra, whereby county ccurthijus& may be constnietea ~by the county. There'13 no general law authorizing the constriic-~ tltin of a County c'durthouse by a municipality. You are there- fore respetitfully aavlsea that it Is the'opinion of this depart; iseM that a municipality ih Texas'would not.be authorized, under the' Cohstitutiofi'of'the statutes-of thTs Sttiite, to l~%&i~ile Its bonds for the purpose of constructing a courthouse for the county.
In your thIra qvestion you ask what 1s a free-hold&; This t:erm.is adequately defined in the case of Atkins, et ux, vs. Davis, et al, 291 SW 968, 970, as follows:
"A freeholder Is one who holds Iand in fee or for life, or for some~indeterminate period.
14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p0 530. A freehoMer is elsewhere defined as a term usea to desIgnate the owneti of an estate'in f&e in'lana as'meaning 6ne~ whb holds freely; a person actually tielzed bT.an~estafe or freehold; legal or equittible; bne who holas an e&&M iti. fee simple, fee'tal?., or one having title to real es- fbbr a term of life; FtJe which may be inherited &J‘ real property. 'One who has an immediate bene-
p. 896. f&iii ownershlp (or) interest, legal or equitable, in the title-to a fee-simple estate in 1aiid;ma Dean v. State, 7 t be regarded as a freeholder.' Fla. 277, 77 So. 107."
Trusting that this answers your inquiry satisfactor$ly, we remain
Hon. Sam Bain, page
Very truly yours, ATTORNBYGENERALOF TEXAS By s/Wm. J. Fiilnnirig Wm. J.-.Fanning Assistant _.
By s/Zollle~'Steiikley Zollie Steakley ZCS:AW:wc
APPROVEI NOV 29, 1939
s/Gerald C. Nann
ATTOmEYGENERALOF TEXAS _ ,,.
Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman