Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1948 )

December 20, 1948
Hon. James C. LIartin ’ opinion No. v-747.
County Attorney
Nueces county Re: The authority of Nueces
Corpus Christi, Texas County to erect branch
county office buildings
,in Robstown and Bishop.
Dear ~I&, Martin:
Your request for an opinion is substantially
as follows :
*Shall the Commissioners Court of Nueoes
County, Texas be authorized to issue bonds
of said county in the amount or $l~O,OOO;-
00, to become due and payable serially in
not to exceed twenty-five ,yetirs from the
date thereof, bearing interest at a rate
not to exceed 4$ per annum, payable ennuel-
ly or semi-annually for the purpose or se-
curing funds to provide necessary public
buildings to be used for county purposes
and described as follows:
: (1) Horticultural and agriouItur& exhib-
it building in Robstown, Teus;
(2) Branch county office building in Roba-
town; Texas;
(3) Branch office building in Bishop. Texas:
and shall the Commissioners Court o?-Nueoes-
County, Texas be authoriied to levy, have
assessed and collected annually while said
bonds or any of them are outstanding, a tax
on the $100.00 valuation of .taxable yroper-
ty in said county at a rate sufficient to
pay interest ‘on and to provide a ainking
fund to pay ,the bonds et maturity?
“There is some question ‘in our minds as t0
whether the county has authority to build
the branch offices buildings in Robstown,
Texas, and Bishop, Texan. These ofiioes
are to be used by the County Tax Assessor-
Ron l Jemea C. Martin, page 2 (V-747)
Colleotor, the County Agrioulture and De-
monstration Agents, and to furnish offloes
for other county purpmea. Neither Bishop
nor Robatown had popU~etiO&s in 4xOess Of
10,000 in 1940. The pOptiSti011 Of RObirtOwQ
aooording to the 1940 oensus was 6,‘?00 end
;g e3tinmted to be in the oioinity 0r 20,-
The population of~Bishop in 1940 wen
1,360 and is now estimted to be in the vi-
cinity 0r 3s500.”
It is the established doctrine of this State
and has been repeatedly held that 8 county msy not ia-
sue'bonas unless such power is erpresely conferred by
law. Sen Patricia County v, McClsne, l& Ter. 392; Rob-
inson v. Breedlove, 61 '24x. 316.
Article 2351, V. C. S., provides, in p8rtr as
roliows:
%aoh Cimmiseionars~ Uqurt ~shall: . .~.
“7. ~Provide and keep iq repair Court
Houses, $SilB and other neeerrsry pub110
buildlngs.n
As to your first reotual situetion Art1014
23726, V. C. S., 'furnishes surfioient authority ior.thr
County to construct 8 hortioul+ural and agriaultural
exhibit buildiug in Robstown, Teua; however, mithm
this nor eny others statutory or constitution8~‘prOVi-
aion authorizes the voting and issuing or bonds for
such 8 purpose. In the absenoe or such euthoritr, the
Comaisaionera’ Court oennot issue mid bonds. (Adase
v. McGill, 146 s.W, 26, 332).
As to your second and third factual sitam-
tions, it is the opinion of thfe offior that the Qu-
missionera~ Court, of Nueoes County in the ereroieo et
its sound discretion is legally authorized to puro~480
the building involved for the intended purpose ux&der
and by virtue of the provisions of Section 7, Arti~cle
2351, IT, C. S,; howovor we have been unablr to rind
eny authority whioh wodd suthorize the issuance of
bonds for such purpose.
Hon. James C. Martin, page 3 (V-747)
In the csse of Danoy v. Davidson, 183 S. W.
(2d) 195, the court stated 8s follows:
“Rrticle 1605, together with the amend-
ments thereto (including tirticle 1605a), re-
late to offices which under the provisions
of the original article must be maintained
at the county seat. This article, or its
amendments, can not be construed as restriot-
ing or taking away the power of the Connis-
sioners’ Court to provide public buildings
to house public agencies not required by law
to be locatea at the county seat. Although
it is contemplated that a branch of the of-
fice of the County Msessor and Collector of
Taxes T,vill be looated in the building, the
primary use intended is riot that of a sub-
courthouse or building in which to house var-
ious branch agencies whose main offfoss muet
be situated at the oounty seat, whioh is the
situation contemplated, and provided for by
Article 1605a o
“(7) We conclude, therefore, that the
Commissioners’ Court of Cameron COUaty is
legally authorlied to puroliere the building
involved for the purposes intend44, provid-
ed, of oourse, that in making the ftianoial
arrangements for such purchase, the provl-
sions of the Uniform Budget Law (Artiole
689a-9 to 689a-12, inclusive, Vernon,‘s AM.
Civ. Stats., relating to counties) were aoa-
plied with, ”
Therefore, it
is the opinion or this 0rri00,
base4 on the foregoingauthorities, that N~oee County
does not have the authority to issue boll48 for thm pur-
pose of securing funds to provide neoparary publio
buildings enumerated in your opinion TeqUdeta
rJwosr County dees not heve suthoritr
til lesue bond8 for t& p pose of scouring
funds to ersot pub110 buiY dings for horti-
oultural and agrioultursl purposes, branoh
Hon. James C. Martin, page I+ (V- 747)
office building in Robstown, Texas, and
branch office building in Bishop, Texas.
Yours very truly,
W T!GXA$
ATTORNEYGriifSEBAL
BW:mw:bh