we rowntly held in our oplnfon number O-%386 that oountp oould not issue bonds for the purpose cl oolutnsoting livestook building. &dd opinion Is based upan the proposl- t&on that a oounty osnnot issue bonds unlass such pwer i8

Honorabls Xrnost Ouinn, &uI@I if8

orpressly conforrs6 by law. Suah is tha sstabllshsd Uootrlns ia t&la State, a&i has been from an early this. It was aftirm- ad on the original appsal of San Patrlolo Cmaty vs. Koalaas, In Robertson vs. Brssdlmr, 61 44 Tsx. 398, reiterated Tax. 3161 also in &asatsr vs. Lspss, tll 8.W. S7g @up. Ct.). %s apoe with tho statssmnt in your 1stOer tlmt it la a r&l ssttlsd rule in Tesm that oeuntlss k&v* the pwu oontraot tbo oonstruotion of oourtlmuso8 or for the irgrrwsmsnt Ot pub110 rodid8 on the ganUa1 oroUt Of the OOUnty, arril to 188110 III svldmos of the indsbtodnsss thuoby oroatsd the tim wmr- rants of tbs oounty maturing in artar ysars. Lasater vs. Lo I;, 819 8.W. 873: Stratton vs. Kinney Oounty, 157 8.n. 1190; r nr dgors at al vs* City of L.ax@aws, SX?CO,,S.W. 1085. We oannot agree that a o0unty nay lssus tins vmrrsnts

ior the oonstruotion of a livestook building. fn Lasata vs* X&pot, the oass oltod by you as authority Zor holding tlvt county may lam*-suoh vmrranta, Judg8 Phllllps stats8 - *Tin oaso as lt stsads In thJ,s acurt is, thusfow, om Wmro a oom- missionsrs~ oourt in the rrooutlon o? a dut on 01-d dnd p&t - tbs aollstru0t10n of publio ra 8 ooua y, de- k&F nod in eood faith upon the frauwoe of oOUnty warrants, instead of bonds, as a plaa of payIaUIt.* The only qwstloa pro- sonted there was whether or not the 001&68ionUS~ ooUrt h& suth4rlty to issue these time warnssits.

Judgs PhiLlips deals at lsngth dth the hl#tOry of ths oonstltutional and lsgislatlve enaotsmts whioh gavr the oom- oourt authority to issw both warrants ad bonds. mlsslowrs* In this oase the court had the spsofiio lsgislatlvs authority to issue bonds for the purport ab oonstmotlng aad laprori~~& mada, but instead, they lssusd blare warrants. The oourt brld that the power issue bonds for road lmprorewnts and oourt- houses, or for money borrond ior the purpsso oi aoquiring mah improvemnts, is a pwsr nhloh is rsgaplsd as bSing; bbyoad ths soopo oi power of ths governing body at: a wlaaty unle88 it bs spsolally granted. This extnordlnasy ‘wer, whsn grant-d, oaa in t ha mod0 ior. tk e prrrp0808 8p0irt86 in bo exuolsotl only the grant, but the mnt of this powsr’dors not lmpU&ly QI- priva tbs governing bo6y of the authority to mahr those Sam fxcprorsmsnts on ars6lt sad to issue non-negotiable intersat- bearing obllgatlons of the uaunty for the debt thps orsatsd, it slimwhere the suthority to atake the ~rQVUMlIt# ia OW- ferrod.

The laws or tbls State, as pointed out in Lasater vs. Lqiez, pl&ioe & &ity ou the aomissiooercl* aourt to bull8 rod8 *,Lit! county was under a SiRSlar duty to snd courthouses. If bui1tk.n livestock building, then no doubt they would &se the authority to borrow ffionag to build auah a bullding the lm- plied authority to Zseue non-negotiable obligations avldanoing tbs debt. But thsre ia no ruoh eonetltuticnal atatutmy duty plucsd on then to build llvestook bulldi~s as *here la for roads an& od~thouses. Article SW734 mrsly provides that oad.salonera~ courte *my proride~ for suoh buildings.

If the oommlssionuo* oourt aould legally issue tim wurrants to build a livestqok building, and find them Into bonds, thla mulch be allowing theat do inb1rtwtl.y what they oould not do Cireotly.

Thsreforo, It ie the’qplaiom of this departswat thsl, oountf oamot le5lly issue tl* warmntr far tha purpose of oonstruotlng llrestoak sxposit@m building. We oould not rundad approve such isme ii they were attapt6d bmC8.

Vuy tql1y yours ATTORKET 0P~RA.L OF WXM B

Assistant