Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1949 )

December 12, 1949
Hon. James H. fsoom 0pinlon Ho* v-961.
Couut$ Attorney
Allgalf.aa county Ben The aatborlty of a sub-
m.fkin,9 !&%9s division of a county to
hold an election to m-
peal In that subdlviariou
a stook law prevlollrrly
voted by the oomaty as
Dear sir: B whole.
Beferfmoe is made to yollp remeat request wh+h
ruwus in part aa r01>0w8:
“This County reoently held an eleotlo&
under.the provlelon of mtiale 6954 whlah re-
malted in favor of the stook law, prohibiting
ip rtmting et large of the aattfle ,namyi there-
.
:“The qwetion now arises a8 to whether
any 8ubdLvlsion of the aounty la entitled to
call an election to re’ al the Uiw in that
siibdltision. Article i!?963 prov#es~for the
repeal OS the law throughout the whble County,
but the statute la vague and indefinite a8 to
wlpther only one of the subdivision o? the
!$dunm~~y vote to repeal the ~I@? In-that sub-
f 0 Therefore our qwatibh td this:
"After 8 County; ‘6~ 8 wkzuh, has voted
’ in favor of prohibiting @took from run-
ning sf large under the term8 of Arti-
ale 6954, oan one aubditir~on of the
County hold an eleatlon to repeal the
law in that subdivision under the terms
of Artiale 6963.’
The stock law reiative to pPohibZtfng horses,
mules, jaoka, jennets and oattle fran running at lame
in oertaiu aountlea was paaaed originally a8 House Bill
595, Rota 26th Leg., R.S., 1899, Gh.128, p.220, and in-
oluded both Artiales 6954 and 6963, Vernonfa Civfl Stat-
utee. However there was no provision in the orfginal
. .
Hon. YatmS If. Bloore, page 2 (v-%1)
Act whereby the stock law might be repealed in a aubdl-
vision of’ a county once It had been adopted in the entire
0 ountg a
Once the stock law has been adopted in a ooun-
ty pursuant to Artlole 6954, supra, there was no auth-
ority to hold an election to repeal the law in any aub-
division of such county until 1903 when the original Act
was amended by Senate Bill 8, Acts 28th Leg., R.S., 1903,
Ch.71, p.97, so as to provide for such an eleation. This
provlslon la found in Artiale 6963, V.C.S., wZllch pro-
tides :
“Upon the written petition of two hundred
freeholders of any of the above named counties,
or upon the written petition of fifty freehold-
era of any subdivision of the above named ooun-
ties, if the law be In force in that aubdlvlalon
only, the commissioners court shall be authorlz-
ed and required to order an eleotion on the date
therein named to determine whether or not said
law be repealed; provided, suoh petition be elgn-
ed by at least twenty-four l’meholdera from eaah
justioe prealnot in suoh oounty. $ut If this
Iaw beaomes omrative over any of the above nam-
ed oounties, as Pmsorlbed. it can in no ease ba
repealed bs any sUbdlVlsion, exaeRt bs a two-
birds laajorlty of the votes cast by the free-
holders of auoh aountles,. at an eleatLon held In
acoordanoe wlth the protis~ons oi this ahepter.”
(Emphasis added)
Slnae the County of Angelina has adopted the
8tOOk law under the provisions of Artiole 6954, It Is our
opinion that the only way it may be repealed in a subdl-
vision of suoh oounty is by holding an eleotion In ooin-
plianoe with Article 6963. ‘
That Artiale provldea that
in no oaae oan it be repealed in any subdivision exoept
by a two-thirds majority of the votea caet by the Sree-
holders o? the oounty . Therefore it ia our opinion that
under the i’aota presented an eleation may not be held by
a subdlvlslon of the couqty to repeal the stook law in
said aubdlvision of the oounty.
SubfKARY
After a oounty as a whole haa adopted
the stock law under Article 699, Vernon18
Hon. James R. Moom, page 3 (V-961)
Civil Statutes, an election iuay not ba oall-
ed in a subdivision alone to repeal the law
in that subdivision. Art.6963, V. C. 3.
Pours very truly,
ATTORREY
GRNRBALOF TRXf@
BA:bh:mw
Bykk& Assistant
APPROVED
?.U
d+
FIRST ASSISTART
ATTOFUQRYGRNRRAL