THE:TTORNEY GENERAL
OF%-EXAS
AUSTIN 11. TEXAS
PRICEDANIEL
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Dsoember 2, 1947
Ron. R. E. Sohneidcr, Jr. Opinion NO. V-443
County Attorney
Live Oak County Re: qualiriaations requir-
George West, Texas ed of pot,itionera for
a Commissi~nqrs~ Court
order to create, alter,
or disoonti’nue a ooun-
ty road.
Dear Sir:
Your request , asking for an interpretation 02
provisions in Article 6705 of the Revised Civil Statute8
of Texas, reads in part:
“The specific question involved is wheth-
er or not non-residents of the, county who are
owners of a fee interest in real estate in the
road precinct are qualified petitioners.”
Article 6705 provides as follows:
“The Commissioners Court shall in no in-
stance grant an order on an application for
any new road, or to discontinue an original
one, or to alter or change the coume of a
public road, unless the applicants have giv-
en at least twenty days notice by written ad-
vertisement of their intended application,
posted up at the court house door of the coun-
ty and at two other public places in the vicin-
ity of the route of such road. All such appli-
cations shall be by petition to the Conunission-
ers Court, signed by at least eight freeholders __,,
in tho precinct in which suoh roaU is desired
to be made or discontinued specifying ins such
petiti th beginning and”termination of such
road, provided an applimtion to alter or chanpe
a road need not be Binned by more than one free-“~“”
holder of the oreoinct.* (Emphasis added throughout)
We quote the following from Rex V. Johnson, 5
N. H. 520. 22 Am. Dee. 472:
Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 2, V-443
“The next question to be determined is
whether anything passed. by the extent. The
objectionurged against it is, that it does
not appear by the return tha,t the appraisers
had the qualifications which the statute re-
quires D It has been decided that an apprais-
er must have a freehold Andy be a resident in
the county where the land to be appraised
lies; and a return that the appraisers were
‘freeholders in the aounty”was held not suf-
ficient, because there was nothing in the
terms which imported that they were residents
in the county. Simpson v. Coe, 3 N.H. 85. We
have attentively considered the language of
-__ ..
_a .,_
_,,
t
_, .,~~,~
tlder
-_ ~,.“,
-.-
FtS ,.,.
of town officers, it was provided that over-
seers of the poor should be ‘freeholders and,
inhabitants of the town’. Here it seems not
to have been deemed enough to declare that
they should be freeholders of the town, but
the word Vinhabitants’ is added; and we have
no doubt that a man who owns real estm
a county, y, with strict propriety of 1an-
page, be zzid to be a f reeholder of that
county, although he may not reside In it. We
are therefore of opinion that the term lfree-“.‘~.’
holders of said county’ do not import resi- .‘~’
dents in the counte.”
In Matthews v. People, 42 N. E. 864, 159 Ill.
399, it is said that:
*Recurring to the statute, it declares:
‘No person shall be licensed to keep a dram-
shop 0 . o D by the authorities of any city,
town or village unless he shall give bond in
the penal B~URI of $3000., . . . . with at least
two good and sufficient sureties, freeholders
of the county in which the license his to be
granted, to be approved by the officer who may
be authorized to issue the license.‘. . . . In
th eo wstr a a tiulf t strtutt it la,8lorayr ln-
TtMt to SMtl’tdB the :nttBt ,@f the ~&els-
c ture and than omry cut thet ihtenfien. But
thr intentfoB lf the le~fslrturt is to be de-
ttrmiBt@frwathe languw wed lh the ad,
tad who2-t ths words \yea trt plain end ttsily
u#n?tnttod. tnc!there Is no ambigult~', there
statate hare dots not,-by a fair ana
reasonable construction, require the sureties
to reside in the same county where the Incor-
porated town er tillage granting the license
is looattd, and oourts are powerless to add a
mWre8mDt aot found in the statutemn
It la our opinion that, insofar as any real- .
denot requirement is concerned, WfreeholdeeM, In the .pre-
cinctW and Yreeholders of the precinct? must be given
the same meaning. We have eonoluded that suoh tsnu,
withfn themselves, do not imply thst a freeholder mwt
be s resident of the precinct. Under the provlslom of
Article 6705, non-resident freeholders, having a fee in-
terest in real estate in the road precinct, are qualifl-
ed pet itioaers o
“Freeholders in the prtoinot” and "fret-
holders of the precinct? must be given the
same meaning insofar as a requirement ai red-
dence is oonoerned in qua~ifloations required
‘ai petitioners for a Commlss~onerst Oourt or-
der to oreate, alter or disoontinue s oounty
ror* 0 Such tezme, within themselver, 40 not
Imply that a irteholdermust be a resident of
the precinot. Under the provisions of Artiele
Hon. R. E. Schneider, Jr. Page 4, V-443
6705, V.C.S., non-resident freehold&s hav-
~-ing a~fee interest in real estate in 'the pre-
cinct are qualified~ petitioners.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF'TEXAS
APPROVED
CBK:mw:jrb