Case Information
*1 THE:TTORNEY GENERAL
OF%-EXAS AUSTIN 11. TEXAS
PRICEDANIEL ATTORNEY GENERAL
Dsoember 2, 1947 Ron. R. E. Sohneidcr, Jr. Opinion NO. V-443 County Attorney Re: qualiriaations requir- Live Oak County ed of pot,itionera for George West, Texas
a Commissi~nqrs~ Court order to create, alter, or disoonti’nue a ooun- ty road.
Dear Sir:
Your request , asking for an interpretation 02 provisions in Article 6705 of the Revised Civil Statute8 of Texas, reads in part:
“The specific question involved is wheth- er or not non-residents of the, county who are owners of a fee interest
road precinct are qualified petitioners.”
Article 6705 provides as follows: “The Commissioners Court shall in no in- stance grant an order on an application for any new road, or to discontinue an original one, or to alter or change the coume of a public road, unless the applicants have giv- en at least twenty days notice by written ad- vertisement of their intended application, posted up at the court house door of the coun- ty and at two other public places in the vicin- ity of the route of such road. All such appli- cations shall be by petition to the Conunission- ers Court, signed by at least eight __,, in tho precinct in which suoh roaU is desired to be made or discontinued specifying ins such th beginning and”termination of such petiti road, provided an applimtion to alter or chanpe a road need not be Binned by more than one free-“~“” holder of the oreoinct.* (Emphasis added throughout)
We quote the following from Rex V. Johnson, 5 N. H. 520. 22 Am. Dee. 472:
Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 2, V-443
“The next question to be determined is whether anything passed. by the extent. The objectionurged against it is, that it does not appear by the return tha,t the appraisers had the qualifications which the statute re- quires D It has been decided that an apprais- er must have a freehold Andy be a resident in the county where the land to be appraised lies; and a return that the appraisers were ‘freeholders in the aounty”was held not suf- ficient, because there was nothing terms which imported that they were residents in the county. Simpson v. Coe, 3 N.H. 85. We have attentively considered the language of -__ . . a _ .,_ _,, t _, ., ~~,~
tlder -_ ~,. “, FtS -.- ,.,. it was provided that over-
of town officers, seers of the poor should be ‘freeholders and, inhabitants of the town’. Here it seems not to have been deemed enough to declare that they should be freeholders of the town, but the word Vinhabitants’ is added; and we have no doubt that a man who owns real estm a county, y, with strict propriety 1 an- page, be zzid to be a f reeholder of that county, although he may not reside In it. We are therefore of opinion that the term lfree-“.‘~.’ holders of said county’ do not import resi- .‘~’ dents in the counte.”
In Matthews v. People, 42 N. E. 864, 159 Ill.
399, it is said that:
*Recurring to the statute, it declares: ‘No person shall be licensed to keep a dram- shop 0 . o D by the authorities of any city, town or village unless he shall give bond in the penal B~URI of $3000., . . . . with at least two good and sufficient sureties,
of the county in which the license his to be granted, to be approved by the officer who may be authorized to issue license.‘. . . In *3 th e owstra atiu l f t strtutt it la,8lorayr ln- to SMtl’tdB the :nttBt ,@f the ~&els- TtMt ture and than omry cut thet ihtenfien. But c thr intentfoB l f the le~fslrturt is to be de- ttrmiBt@ frwathe languw wed lh the ad, tad who2-t ths words \yea trt plain end ttsily u#n?tnttod. tnc! there Is no ambigult~', there hare dots not,-by a fair ana statate reasonable construction, require the sureties to reside in the same county where the Incor- porated town er tillage is looattd, and oourts are powerless granting the license
to add a aot found in the statutemn mWre8mDt It la our opinion that, insofar as any real-
denot requirement is concerned, WfreeholdeeM, In the .pre- of the precinct? must be given cinctW and Yreeholders the same meaning. We have eonoluded that suoh tsnu, withfn themselves, do not imply thst a freeholder mwt be s resident of the precinct. Under the provlslom Article 6705, non-resident freeholders, having a fee in- are qualifl- terest in the road precinct, ed pet itioaers o
“Freeholders in the prtoinot” and "fret- holders of the precinct? must be given same meaning insofar as a requirement ai red- dence is oonoerned in qua~ifloations
required ‘ai petitioners for a Commlss~onerst Oourt or- der to oreate, alter or disoontinue s oounty ror* 0 Such tezme, within themselver, 40 not Imply that a irteholder must be a resident of the precinot.
Under the provisions of Artiele *4 Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 4, V-443
6705, V.C.S., non-resident freehold&s hav- ~-ing a~fee interest in 'the pre-
cinct are qualified~ petitioners.
Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF'TEXAS APPROVED CBK:mw:jrb