Case Information
*1 I
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN GROVER SELLERS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
HOnorable c. lL licholson, chairrnsn
Canittee. on.Nunlclpal and Private Corporations Houee of Reprerentatlve8, 49th Leglulature ,.
Au tin, Texaa Obar Mr. RIobolronr Opinion lo. 04432
Rer Constitutionality cg H.B. Bo. 553 concernleg cansollda- tlon of a town or village of :less ehan 5000 population, ( with a c1t.r having more than 5OM) population.
I .
We beg to acknowlMge receipt of your request for an opinion by this department upon the above subject mat- ter, r0ii0v8t
"I aa directed bi the Comlttee On Jfunlcl- pal &iv&to Co~pom~fiion8 to rend the attached aill #O. ,65> t0 m end XUque8t that an bU8e op%nlon be given the~COsualt.tee a8 to the legality, or oonrtitutional%tj, Qi that motion dealing with the ret?OrpeOtiVe Or l%tPOaCtiVe provirlon bill contained in th8 third paragraph of Section 1, ~beginnlng cq
-A>, *m pbslng it vi11 be noted that bill in $ectim 2 propose8 to amend certain article. Undoubtedlrj:i thl8 sh0Ud be chengsd a8 to mend the proper chapter. Your oplnlon ln this oonnec- tlon will al.ao be appreciated."
That portion of Ii. B. Ro. 553 especially pointed out by you a8 probably be- retrospective, 1s as follovs: *2 Honorable C, B. Richol8on [2]
%I8 SOotion I8 hereby declared to be retro- speotlve to the iollovlng extent. All petitions purporting to be 8igned by quellfled vot8r8, and pre8Onted to the goveFnIng body and all ordinances, Pe8OlUtiOn8, nOtIOO8, dOO1aMtIOn8 or &her act8 by the governing body of anr city, tovn or village aomIng vlthln the applicable p~ovI8lon8 of thI8 section, purporting to be in compliance with the 8tatutoPy provi8I0nr aontalned in chapter 15 of 28 Rev1804 Clvll Statute8 of X925; and any notice, drolaPatIon, or other act certlfloate requised to be done or purporting to bave been done by any nfor, wunollman, ewl88loner, aldemn, altr seoretarr or city olerk in ccm- plIaii&S Vith the 8tatUtOm Peqti8ItIon8 Of of Title 28 Revl8ed Clvll Statute8 of -Chapter 1925; rhall hT0 th8 88me legal effeat a8 it there had then exI8ted a lav authorl8Ing each act to have been done and authori8Ing cities, town8 and villages of 1088 than 5,000 population to con8oll- date. An7 eleotloa hsld prior to the enaotment of thI8 sot submitting the que8tlon of con8olldatlon qualified of oItIe8 or town8 authorized voter8 to consolidate by this act, 8ha11 in all thing8 be deemed a legal and valid eleotlon a8 if this lav had been In exi8tence on ~JMB date of 8uoh election; the requirement8 of lav applicable provided aon8olIdatIon of oItie8 and tovns have otherwI8e been ooapllrd vIth.'
.,, Section of Article I of the State Constitution - the Bill of Right8 - I8 a8 follovsr
%o bill of attainder, ox po8t facto &v, retronotlve lav, any lar the obll- lmpairlp @AtiOn Of OOiItPaOt, 8ball be made.
We note tbat the bill, above quoted, u8e8 the VOPd "retrospeotlv8" rather than the vord "retroaotive::. but this c.an make nc difference 8ince the tvo vordr a8 ured In OQnt 8tItUtlon8 are held t0 be SnOlymoU8. Ralrden v. Rolden, 15 Ohio St. 20 ; O~ar T. Toledo (Ohio) 89 1. B. 12; State v. 218 If. Y. 154; A8hley V. BPOm (1. c.) P1ea8oIl (H. D. 1 9. B. 725; WIlSOn V. HOV ksxico L. dc T. Co. (a. no) 81 Pac. gg $5; C;~~inental 011 co. V, Hontana Concrete Co. (Mont.)
. .
,
Honorable C. E. Nicholson page 3
The vorda retroactive and retrospective lays, within the meaning O? 8fShtUte8 aOn8titUtiOn8, mean those that in retrospect vould affect prior acts, transaatlons, or rlght8 already acerued giving to 8Ueh a legal effeot dif- ferent frown vhat it had under the lav vhen they occurred. Uash.) 50 Pso. 1191 Clearwater Tovn- State v. Vhlttlsrey 8hlp 9. Board (Mloh. 153 1. Y. 824; Keith v. Ousdry (Tex.) 114 3. W. 392; Duok v. Black Diamond cOliOPiO8 (Tan.) 3. U. (2) 6. f Amerloan Surety Co, v. Axtell Con any (Tex.) 36 8. N. (2 3 715; Bowing v. Delaware Rayon Co. P Del.) 188 Atl. 769; Ducey V. Patterson (Cola.) 86 Pac. 109; ffray v. CItx of Toledo (Ohio) 89 If, B. 12; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge K. of P. 94 3. W. 470 (Ho.); Oladney v. Sydnor (MO.) 72 3. W. 554% Turbevllle v. Oovdy (Tax.) 272 3. Y. 559. t0 What V8 have jU8t said ?ollovs that it CorollarJ lav vhlch doe8 not o$Orate retro8peotlvely to a?fect any vested right of any j%erson 1s not retroactive or retro- thore tePm8 are u8ed in constitutional lav. spective,
It Is penalsalble, therefore, for a statute to draw - on or to relate to antecedent faota ln any pertinent and
ooncltltutlonal vay lu the process of making lav, which doe8 ,not attempt to disturb exlstlhg vested rights, as above shovn. Cox. v. Hart (U. 3.) 67 Law Ed. 332; Clearvater Township v. Board Mlch.) 153 H. U. 8248 Westerrnan v. Su reme Lodge K. P. t MO.) 94 3. W. 4701 Oladney v. Sydnor P MO.) 72 3. W. l
The ObVioU8 rea8on for the distinction ve have here noticed 18 that rtatute8 oreating Pight8, obligations or aPI8ing entirely pPO8peatlVOlg arfJ not Invalid I3OPely dUtiO8 becaucle they predicated or fonaulated ln part upon prior conditions, situations and the like, for the rlmple aotr, pea8on there i8 no cOn8tItutlonal pPOVl8IoZI iorblddlng 8UCh an act; whereas there 18 almost universal conrtltutlonal prohibition against retroactive or retrospective lava oreating rights, duties or obligations which did not It 18 the latter situation that such con- exist be?oPe. provisions pPe8crlbe. 8titUtiOlld
-’ This view la but another way o? giving effect curative acts of the Legislatum.
Corpus JuPls Secundum thus states the general rule: *4 Honorable C. E. f?lcholson
"In genenl, vhere there 18 no oonstltutlonal prohibition, a Isglalature may, by retrospective statute, CUP8 men IPPegUtiPItler, ln prior pro- ceedlngr vhlah do not extend to Platter8 of jurlx- dlotlon; o~dlnarlly it may Patl?y and validate any pa8t act vhlch it could orlglnally have au- thoriced, prwlded it still ha8 the power to doe8 not lmpalr authorize it and its authorization rights. bXQXOn OXpcS88iOll8 Of thI8 rti0 --V98ted to the erfect that the L8glxlatur8 may validate retroepectlvely any proaeedln# whIoh it might have authorlxed In advance, or may cure-by subsequent statute vhat It night have dI8pen8Od vith al- together. 30, 8tatUtO8 Curing defeat.8 in .SCts dotie, authorl8lng or aonrlnslng the exercise of pover8, are valid vhere the Legislature orIgInally had authority confer powers or - Vol. 16, p. 875-6 authorlxe the sot." We are ln sccord vlth your suggestion that the title to H. 3, Ro, should be changed to read in substance as t fOiiOV8
“AH ACT to axkend Chapter 15, Revised Civil Statute8 of Texas, 1925." and 80 on a8 you have it ¶..!I the title.
This, ve belleoe, ansvers JOUP Inquiry.
Your8 very truly ATTORERY QEHHRAL OF ,, &i Oale peer BY A8818 t.Ult