Case Information

*1 AUSTIN. TXXAS 78711 September 10, 1975

Honorable Wilson E. Speir Opinion No. H- 687 Director

Texas Department of Public Safety Re: Effect of 1975 amendments to P. 0. Box 4087 6687b, 5(b), V. T. C. S. Austin, Texas 78773

Dear Colonel Speir:

You have requested our opinion regarding the effect of House Bill 827, found at Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 113, p. 267. The Act provides, in pertinent part:

Section 1. Subsection (b), Section 5, Chapter 173, Acts of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session, 1941, as amended (Article 6687b, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes), is amended to read as follows:

(b) No person who is under the age of twenty-one (21) years shall drive any motor vehicle except a taxicab while in use as a public or common carrier of persons, nor until he has been licensed as a chauffeur. No person who is under the age of nineteen (19) years shall drive a taxicab while in use as a public or common carrier of persons, nor until he has been licensed as a chauffeur. However, the governing body of a home-rule city having a population of more than 800, 000, according to the last preceding federal census, may authorize by ordinance the issuance of temporary permits persons who are qualified by age to drive a taxicab and who hold a valid Texas operator’s license. A temporary permit must be issued for a definite period time not to exceed 10 days and may not be issued to the same individual more than once every 90 days. The holder *2 of a valid temporary taxicab permit may operate a taxicab while it is in use as a public or common carrier of persons. Temporary taxicab permits mar be issued only in connection with special events the city being attended by out-of-city visitors resulting in demand for transportation beyond the capabilities established transportation facilities and may not be issued for the purpose of providing transportation in lieu of transportation services suspended or lapsed as the result of a dispute between employees and their employer. Proof of liability insurance coverage in an amount equal to that required by locally franchised companies shall be required before a temporary permit may be issued. (Language added by 1975 amendment is underscored.) You ask whether this amendment of section 5(b) of article 6687b, V. T. C. S., re-establishes minimum ages of 21 and 19 years for the purposes set forth therein, and also, whether the permits whose issuance by certain home-rule is authorized by the amendment are effective the geographical area of the particular

That portion of section 5(b) which establishes minimum age require- ments the operation of certain motor vehicles was not amended and was re-enacted verbatim the 1969 amendment In 1973, however, enacted 5923b, which provides that any:

law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which extends a right, privilege, or obligation to a person on the basis of a minimum age of 21, 20, or 19 years shall be interpreted as prescribing a minimum age of 18 years.

As a result, as of the effective date of art:icle 5923b, August 27, 1973, the scope of section 5(t) of article 668713 was effectively altered by operation of law to establish a minimum age of 18 years for each of the privileges granted.

See Attorney General Opinion H-82 (1973). We must determine whether Legislature by the 1975 amendment intended to re-establish age requirements of section 5(b) that existed prior to August 27, 1973.

P. 2989 *3 The mere presence, in amended section 5(b), of the precise language of the earlier statute is not in itself determinative of the question since, by virtue of article 3, section 36 of the Texas Constitution, the Legislature, in amending 5(b), was obliged to “re-enact and publish at length” the entire section.

The Texas Supreme Court has stated that the “paramount rule” construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Dolan v. Walker, 49 S. W. 2d 695, 697 (Tex. Sup. 1932). The “rather than the strict letter of the act, ” is deemed controlling. legislative intent, Cityjof Mason v. West Texas Utilities Co., 237 S. W. 2d 273, 278 (Tex. SUP. 1951). When necessary to effectuate or preserve the obvious intention of the Legislature, a court will depart the exact and literal language of a statute:

A literal interpretation will be avoided if reasonably possible when to give a literal interpretation would nlainlv thwart the purposes of the Leeislature. or would-lead to absurdity. Texas State-Board of Dental Examiners v. Fenlaw, 357 S. W. 2d 185, 189 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 1962, no writ).

If the minimum age provisions of section 5(b) are read literally, it is necessary to hold that House Bill 827 partially repeals age provisions established by article In Cole v. State, ex ref. Cobolini, 170 S. W. 1036, 1037 (Tex. Sup. 1914), the Supreme Court indicated the standard governing repeals by implication:

Repeals b, implication are never favored. Laws are enacted with a view to their permanence, and it is to be supposed that a purpose on the part of the lawmaking body to abrogate them will be given unequivocal expression. Knowledge of an existing law relating to the same subject ,is likewise attributed to the Legislature in the enactment of a subsequent statute: and when the later act is silent -as to the older law, the presumption is that its continued unless they present a contradiction operating was intended, so positive that the purpose of repeal is manifest. To avoid a state of conflict an implied repeal results where two acts are in such opposition. But the antagonism must be absolute--so pronounced that both cannot stand. *4 Though they may seem to be repugnant, if it is possible to fairly reconcile them, such is the duty of the court. A construction will be sought which harmonizes them and leaves both in concurrent operation, rather than destroys one of them. If the later statute reasonably admits of a construction which will allow effect to the older law and still leave an ample field its own operation, a total repugnance cannot be said to exist, and therefore an implied repeal does not result, since in such case both may stand and perform a distinct office.

We believe that the two statutes can be harmonized by attributing verbatim re-enactment of the minimum age provisions of the 1941 amendment to section 5(b) to legislative oversight. We are buttressed in this conclusion by the caption to House Bill 827, which provides:

An Act relating to the authority of certain home-rule to issue a temporary permit to a person with an operator’s license to operate a taxicab; amending Sub- (b), Section 5, Chapter 173, Acts of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session, 1941, as amended (Article 6687b, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); and declaring an emergency.

Nowhere in the caption is there any indication that the Legislature intended alter the minimum age requirements as established by article It is proper to look to the title of an amending act to aid the description of the amending clause, especially where, the body of the act, the intent of is doubtful or obscure. Shipley v. Floydada Independent School District, 250 S. W. 159 (Tex. Sup. 1923). It is our opinion, then, that the 1975 amendment to article 6687b does not alter age require- ments for operators of common carriers which became effective on the enact- ment of article 5923b in 1973.

You also ask whether the temporary taxicab permits authorized by the 1975 amendment 6687b are effective statewide or whether their effect is restricted to the geographical area of the issuing home-rule As a general rule, the police power of a municipal corporation may be exer- 6 McQuillin, Municipal cised only within the territory of the municipality. Corporations § 24. 57 (3d ed. 1969). The Supreme Court has declared that:

. . . the jurisdiction and power exercised by a municipal corporation is and must be confined the territory of its situs. . . City of Arlington v. Lillard, 294 S. W. 829, 830 (Tex. Sup. 1927).

Unless has expressly conferred extra-territorial powers upon a city, “its jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to its boundaries. ” Ex park Ernest, 136 S. W. 2d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939). See also City Sweetwater v. Hamner, 259 S. W. 191 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Fort Worth 1923, writ dism’d).

House Bill 827 does not expressly grant to home-rule cities having a population of more than 800,000 the authority to issue temporary permits which are effective beyond the city’s jurisdiction. Moreover, statute, by restricting issuance of the permits to periods in which there are “special events in the city being attended by out-of-city visitors resulting demand transportation beyond the capabilities of established transportation facilities, ” implies that the permits would be necessary only within the jur- isdiction of the particular city. Other statutes dealing with a municipality’s vehicle-licensing authority expressly circumscribe the city’s jurisdiction.

Article 6698, V. T. C. S., affirms the authority of “incorporated cities and towns to license and regulate the use of motor vehicles for hire in such -- corporation. ” (Emphasis added.) Section 20 of article 1175 permits a home- rule city “[t]o license, operate and control the operation of all character (Emphasis added. ) In addition, one vehicles using the public streets. . . . ” court has recognized that, even without a statute, a home-rule city may “regu- late the operation of vehicles using its public streets. ” City of Amarillo v. 406 S. W. 2d 230 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Griggs Southwest Mortuary, Inc., Amarillo 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.) (emphasis added).

We believe that the limiting language in these cases and statutes, together with the absence in House Bill 827 of any express grant of authority to the specified to issue permits that would be effective beyond the city’s geographical area indicates the intention of the Legislature to confine the city’s authority to its corporate limits. Accordingly, it is our opinion that temporary permits issued by a home-rule city pursuant 6687b are effective the jurisdiction of the particular home- rule city.

SUMMARY The 1975 amendment to article 668713 does not alter age requirements for operation of common carriers which became effective on the enactment Temporary taxicab permits issued 5923b in 1973. by a home-rule city pursuant 6687b, 5(b) are effective the jurisdiction of the particular Very truly your?, u JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas AP ROVED: r - - --

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman

Opinion Committee

jwb