Case Information

*1 R-144 XAS

March 26, 1947 Hoa. laoneg E. Lindsey Opinion No. V-104 County Attorney

Upshur County Gilmer 9 Texas Re : Authority of just ice

court and municipal in State Highway law violations within limits of

Dear Mrlr. Lindsey: municlpalltg, opinion OS this department,

Your request for an regarding to the writer the above-captioned subject, has been referred

for reply, We quote from your request in part as follows :

“I would like an Interpretation of Article 827a, Section 12 of the Penal Code, which has to do with stop signs placed at junctions of main traveled highways D

“My s cific case is that within the tit limits of and U. 9 O Highway MO, 271 cross at right angles. r ilmer, Texas, State Highway Ro. 15$ The junction is one block off the town square.

?he State Highway Department has placed stop signs against traffic of both higbvays.

“The question Is, ‘may violators of these stop signs be proceeded against In justice court or must they be proceeded against in city court?’

“The city of Gilmer is Fncarporated and has a po ulatlon of approximately thirty-five hundred P 3500) o The State Highway Department constructed these highways to the town square, and I understand does the maintenance on them.

“At the time one of these highways was constructed the City and the Highway Depart- ment entered into a contract whereby the Department agreed to construct said highway, *2 Ron. LoOwy, R. Lindsey, Page 2, V-104

In this contraot there is a provision agreed between read- ing: ‘It Is understood and

the parties hereto that the city, by virtue _ . . of the provisions of its charr;er ana cne laws of the State of Texas, has exclusive control of and jurlsdlatlon of all streets and public ways within the Incorporated of said city, and the city has re- limits qwsted and has consented to the construc- tion of the street project hereinabove named, and the State, in the construotlon of the above-n-d street project, dose so at the o-1 lnstanaa and request of the city. l ,g: loeatlon, grade8 and mmnbr of the con- gggyg&g&gg: :: lpgy:;:a:y):* thereof 0 The State Highway Departmat of the State of Texas acts aa tha agent of the alty & the construction of the street pro- jsct thersof. 1”

&tlcle 62, Texas Code of Crldoril Procsdti, “A corporation in each incorporated city, tovn or village of this state shall hare urisdiction within the corporate limits of al J arm-1 cases arising under the ordi- ~naal) of such olt7, town or village, and #hall have concurrent jurisdiction with any jurtlce of the peace in any precinct in vhidh 88ld elty, town or village in all . erlJBSAa1 cases arising under the criminal laws .’ of this State, In which punishment is by fine only, and where the maximum of such f fne may . not exceed two hundred ($200.00) dollars, and

arising vlthia such aorporate limits 0 ’ ‘. SeatIon 118, Volume 12, Texas Jurisprudence,

ye: 396, after quoting the above statute reads as fol-

2

“This provlsioa expressly gives corpora- tion aourta authority and jurisdiction to try offense8 arising out of violation of muuicl- and also to try offenses a- pal ordinances, rising under the general penal laws of the State,, vithln the limits prescribed. (Clt- lng numroua authorities) D .‘, ,,: ”

Hon. Mooney E. Lindsey, Page 3, v-104

“under the amendment to the Coostitu- tion giving the Leglelature power to leetab- lish such other courts as it may &aem newee- sary) and prescribe

the jurisdlctloa an& er- ganlzatlon thereof c y and to ‘conform the juria- diction of the district and other iaferlor courts thereto, p (Constitution, Article 5, Section 1) the Legislature, has power to give corporation courts jurlsdistioa to try per- sons for offenses against state lava. (Oit- ing numerous authorities) O In prose cut ion for offenses of this charrater, the carpora- t ion courts have jurisdiction concurzwatly of the peace in alcly @a- with auy justice clnct in vhich the city In all cases where the maximum fine does not exceed two hundred ($200.00) dollars,

If the offense has been camltted within the city limits; but the courts may not be given juriaW.c- tlon to try nls,demeanor offenses punishable by imprleonnmt, at least cities qmmtlug under the homa rule provision of the Cctlati- tutioa; nor may thsg Be olothed with eXeY.us- ive jurisdiction over infractions of state law, to the exclusion of gustioe courts, or other cowte created- by the Conatitution.n

It is therefore the ruling of this department, that violators of State Highway lavs within the cor)crate limits of tha City of Gilmar sight be prosecute@ in eith- er the justice court of your county, or the nu~lci~l court of the City of Gilmsr when the penalty shall not exceed two hundred ($2OO.OOj doll~s and no jail een- tenoe is provided by statute,

The .corporatlon of the Oity of Gllmer has conaurrent jurisdlut ion. with the just@8 courts of Upshur douutg, of viola- tions of State Bigbvag laws vithin the limits of the city, when the pen- alty shall uot exceed two hundred ($20@.@0) dollars and no jail sentence is provided by (Article 62, C. C. ?a1 statute. *4 aarwra reur ema- that the fonsolng

Treeti~ tionnairea, w ew

Yaws wrg tcnlys