Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Wnorablo 0. C. Randlo
Drr Sir:
pinion oi thir on raadr in pert 8 a Daputy Tax aity of xnnir, 608, rad uamled ,ln tanand, of fan orrfoa a thoorand population, ding to maintain a DoputT Tax or.8 ofT%oa, and ths bal8noa oi o be btlilt by tha altq of Bmts.
ION O?fEt Can the County lagallr axpad mnd8 out Of the Permanent xmpro~nt Fun6 r0r fhf 8 ptlrpoEs? Can the Couatf josntly with the abora propord building
the O;~~?%%?a~uil(I 8nd ll80 th8 P6man8tlt II&pPOVmWtt hlld8 iOr SeWlO? *I ofta th8 Oa8e Or Denoy VI). DaVid8OZ2, S.W. 2nd 183-195."
555 *3 556.
Elonoreblo C. C. tiandle,'pago 3
held that a ohm&' OOula not jOin a Oity in puPoha8i;ocl 8 to be wed by both tho~oounty and ERtBiOipd buildin& We believe that thfr opinion togother with the ait:;. oltod themundrr fully ammar pur tha authorities question and we enclom it together with Opinion Ho.
O-5978 ior your Ob8eTWitiOn.
Thi8 a6partmntb* p2'*8Oltt opinioa i8 be8.a on &ho root that the proporsa building 18 to b* owned ma,oon- trd.U jointly bl the City Of mi8 and ths County Of m118. If there were a 8OVOl'~BOO 88 $0 oWn8nl;hip uld OOlttFOl ~a aitrerent rulr might re8ult.