Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
zonerable John R. Shook
Crlmlnal Dlatrlot Attornsy
sari Antonio, Texae
Deer sira
nty at the Aormbbs~, mrel election?
upon the above
ners* Court of Berm the oon6truotlon of whlah bond6 in the thorlzsd to bs Issued the county et tha flovembar, oh hospital, alld is such tax 8 Constitution?
"(3) ?i;hat prooeUurs i6 rmorsaary to hake such a tuberoular hoqdtml tax lsg61PW On liaroh (?9, 1941, this departmmt mot6 you a lat- ter regusstlnrr turthar Lnformatlon r6latlYe to the ebws ~&se- fions propou&d to thi6 office Uoposrning the byildiw of a .----..A.,
[356] Honorable John B, Shook, page 3
tubsroular ho8pltel in 8eld C0Unty for whloh hoe?ital bonde were-Toted In th6 general l leotlon in Rwcmhsr, 1940. In reply to ous abora mentionad letter, on April 5, 1941, you wrote w in part a6 follows~
"we aoknowledge receipt a&o of your oplalon Boa 04599. I fisllsve thir opinion amwers 6atistaotorlly the question6 Ho. 3 end 3 propounded to you, end it dll not be to 80 further into these Ql66tiOn6. mOeS6al'$' We do dwirr, however, en opinion on &motion 80, 1; aa propounded in our reque6t, ths 66El6 being, 'Is the Comaisaimsre~ Court of Berar C~ounty, Texee, ooqelled to direct the conotruotlon of a tuberoular hospital, for whloh bonds in the 6~6 of $;t85,OGO.G0, were euthodxed to bs lseued by the people of the Countyat the Nommber lQt0 General El6otlon.'
"For your intormtlon, this pro~~~osel to build a hospital W66 eubxltted at our Eiovcun- bar Caneral Zleotlon and at thet tfae the Comi6eioner6~ Court submitted the 6ame, imow- in& in their own minds thnt there wad not any mthod by whio:: they might iso tarso to support the said proposed hoep tal, f The twenty-r%vs osnt ra for county purjsose6, em provid6d by the Conatltutlon, hsrine been already l~lod and allotted to Ot&et y.QO666, 1~1066 E. B. No, tit, ml&t provide tar aadf- tlonal tax lery for the support of said hO6pital. % <a
'It Is nou ooxitendrd by the paopla aho wtrra propo61~ the building Oi thlr horpltel that the people having voted thr ~e83,OGO.OO In bonds, it le mmdatory that the bonds be ieauad an& the hotpltalbe built evem though it mu& otend Idle ead be oi no beastit what- ever to the altisanr of Boxer Oountyl
=l'his oftlor has held, as you will iled from our opinion whlohwas trem+tbd to you
. _
,7-.. -+ *3 Honcrabla John R. Shook, page 5
with a request for an opinion, that the Cm- niazloners~ court does not baV6 to 168W these bonds, but zzy use it6 di6OratiOn In regard to tho ear40 for the reaeon that to build the hoe- gltal would bo a useless act and would be of no banarlt whatever to the people as the 6ama could not bo operated,
'Will you pleaaa, therefore, Clve w as speedily a8 poaalble an opinion amwaring our question Wo, l?*
Chapter 5, Title 71, Vernon'6 Rmotated Civil Stat- utee ( authorizes aad axpowers the Comml6aloner6~ Court or any county to eetabllsh a oounty ho6pltal end to enlarge any exiatlne hos_cltels for the care end treatzant of pernone suffering Srorz any illness,
eto., mbject to the provisions ootiained In said ahaptar. It Is tu=thar crotifded in said chsgter that the C03~l~slcner6 ' Court shzl$ eubmlt to the voters at e epeolal or regular election the propoeltfon of lssllins hoods for the ?ur,:ose or ?steblishln6 or enk~~in:: such hos;ltall, and whenever any such pro?osltlon shall re- ceive a majority of the votes of the ~;ellSled tatpayers -voting et suoh a)notion, aeld Commissicners~ Court ahall 'establish and maintcln 6-h hospital and heva the powers as set out lc Article 4478, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Stat- utee. You state tbst tha afeotlon we6 held under Article 4493, Vernon's Amotated Cl~ll Stat&err, and that there was a favorable vote authorizing the issuance of 66ld bonda.
The 6Mwer t-0 your Qw6tfOILTdibpeKki6 UpOn the OOn- structlon of the word a6~lla a6 wed In the above nent?.oned etetut es. A6 stated in your briar the ceee of Xoyar v* Rally, 93 S. WI (fid) SO& tta,oourt saidt
%I statutory oon6tructlon the word *shall* 16 generally oonetruad to be mandatory. . . .* at fn the Oa66 Of lhtfond SUWty CompUIy 7. Led&, ll6 S. 8, (Ed) BOO, it la stated: - "In the OOlletNOtiOn Of 6-+ut66 the word _ . a ma nay be aomtruea to mean isnau or tne wora 1 my bc oon6tzuad f0 m6n pay 6OOOrdi.U xi& intent axprassrd In the 6tadut.a. . . .a me :I- --_, *4 Eozornble John S!. Shook, Pace 4
It is apparent tbit the aWmrltlaa ars in conrllct ropaidihg the statutory aohstructlon OS the word WshQl*. There 1s e lon& line OS authoritfsr holding in rtSsct the sasa thing. Ro?mef, the nerds or a statute era a.ccorQed the xeaalng that coxporte ~1% the 1s:lslative Intention. Othernise stated, thlr rule is that the statutory words ara to be lnterpratad according to the sensa in whloh they were &Gently used by the Lei;islature. Thus when oeoeesary to fulfill the le&lslative l&ant, the maoin~ ‘31 words xay be boyoad or restricted within their natural import. extended The 1eCielatlre intention 1s primarily fouhd in the l.an;uaGe of the Btutute, and thereSore the word8 lzpllsd ara ordl- narily @vra their plrb moaning (Simona rl Amla, 220 s. v, 66* State Y. William, 0 Tex. 255; Ktnder v. YJ& 1 s. ?r:. j2d) 557; T 6x86 ~ur~spudsroe, Vol. ss, ps lE4.j
f e think that the word “shall” c.8 used in the above sentioned statutes should be given its plain maning and is used by the Le&&tu?e in t!zia ~i?ee, As atstsb Sn Corpus furis hcundu?s, Vol. 2G, p. lll33:
wTii~ ?fSact of a favorable mtn at e duly aut?.orized 5oWI *lectl:n is ta ?:eXe it t.hc! iaty of the rroper county aUt!ioritieS tn iFaGe t%e i‘:n;G, v4nlean dk3CE3tiGCP.r~ ;VnW? i6 VCStO~ in but EUC’: ‘rot.6 do66 not Oa6titute % blnd- t:w,; lng eontract for the iaruahca of boo&. (Citi- ing f3:e ca696 of Xil~lqton, etc. 3.’ Co. v.
Qnslow Sounty, 23 8. 2:. 205, 115 1;. C. 565; ?I, S.-Wadsworth t. St, Croix County, 4 I’. 375!.*
Aster a oaxwful searoh of the authorities ror a oaee 1~ polat on the above questlcn, we have been unable to find any Texas case wNoh decides this issue. Ke hnra con- ridered the t.m oases lb other jurl~dlotlohn, cited above, whiEt held in me0t t&t *the 8rmt ot a favorable rot6 at a duly authorized bond electfoa is to make it the duty oS the proper oounty aut.horltler to issue t.ke bvnds, uuleas diaaretionery polrer 1s vested lh then”: but after cerefully oonehlaring Chapter 5, Title 71 rupra and especially llrtlcles 4470 ahd +483 contalne 8 themin, we Sdl to fliid nbpre power 1s vested in the COLmieslomm3’ Court to exer- ,hOuld
I any dlecrotlon to det mmine whether such mhould not be issued. %a ballarr that the of a
‘- 359 f!omrable John R. Shook, Page 8
favorable *:ote at a duly authorized bond election 18 to nake it the duty of the Comlssioners~ Ccwt to issue the bonds under the a’Jovb nentloned chapter. It is our fur- ther opinion that the word “shallw ad used ie the said oht?tsr is co.?neotion Sit:. the issuance of said bonds ia mndatory. The matter of eecurlng money for, the gw~oae8 of maintslnlne and opmrating said hoepltal, after its emc- tion, cannot be aettm~-insd by this aeparb,nt, but mul)t be determined by the Conmlssionere~ Court.
Tru8t.l~ that tha foregoin!: fully amvmra your we ere inquiry,
Yours very truly OF TSXAS APR AWXiK!CY cT?!!?ML sywQ;“, Ardell 7iilliama Assistnnt