Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

R-144
XAS
March 26, 1947
Hoa. laoneg E. Lindsey Opinion No. V-104
County Attorney
Upshur County Re : Authority of just ice
Gilmer 9 Texas court and municipal
court in State Highway
law violations within
corporate limits of
Dear Mrlr.Lindsey: municlpalltg,
Your request for an opinion OS this department,
regarding the above-captioned subject, has been referred
to the writer 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 r ilmer, Texas, State Highway Ro. 15$
and U. 9 O Highway MO, 271 cross at right angles.
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 P3500) 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,
Ron. LoOwy, R. Lindsey, Page 2, V-104
In this contraot there is a provision read-
ing: ‘It Is understood and agreed between
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
limits of said city, and the city has re-
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
l o-1 lnstanaa and request of the city.
,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 court 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 is situated, 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-
pal ordinances, and also to try offenses a-
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
with auy justice of the peace in alcly @a-
clnct in vhich the city is situated, 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 court 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
corporate limits of the city, when the pen-
alty shall uot exceed two hundred ($20@.@0)
dollars and no jail sentence is provided by
statute. (Article 62, C. C. ?a1
Treeti~ that the fonsolng aarwra reur ema-
tionnairea, w ew
Yaws wrg tcnlys