.,~
* ,’
EXAR
AUSTIN 11. TFxas
October 9, 1947
Hon. M. W. B~iggs Opinion No. V-404
county Auditor
Hill County Re: Authopitg of the Commis-
Hillsboro, Texas sfonersP Court to own and
operate an automobile et
county expanse.
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to your recent letter in
which you requested an opinion of this Department which
reads, in part, as follows:
"1 * Can I approve a bill for payment
which the Commissioners Court of Hill County
has ordered paid, which is for the pu_nchase
of a new automobile for one of the Commlssion-
ers?
"2 . Is It legal fop County Commlssion-
ers of Hill County, Texas, to operate and own
an automobile or a pick-up truck at county
expense?
"Ibe only law which I have been able to
find which pertains to this matter is Article
2372f, which is found in volume 7, page 861,
of Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes. In this
connection the last census, which was in 1940,
shows Hill County to have a population of 38,-
352 persons. This, of coume, 'clearlytakes
Hill county out Or the purview 0r htic.10
2372r.
'For your Information, the Court of Crimi-
nal Appeals of Texas in Ervin vs. State, re-
'portedIn 44 Southwestern Reporter, Second
Series, at page 380, states that the population
bracket law ceases to apply to any partlculap
county when the csunty drops out or the popula-
tion bracket concerned at any federal census.
Other Texas cases are quoted in this opinion to
the same effect. The question of population
Eon. M. W. Briggs - Page 2 (V-404)
bracket law ceases to a.pplyto a county
when the federal census shows they have
left that particular population bracket
is further covered by Attorney Genera.1
Opinion O-2337, ds,tedMay 18, 1940."
We concur in your view that Article 2372f,
V.C.S., no longer applies to Hill County beceuse under
the 1940 Federal Census Hill County does not come with-
in the population bracket. We further conour that this
~;eon is covered by Attorney General's Opinion No+
- . ThePefore, your first question is answered in
the negative.
At the Regular Session of the 36th Legisla-
ture there was enacted H. B. No. 500, (Acts 1919, 36th
Leg., p. 105, ch. 33) being a specia,lroad law provid-
ing for a more efficient road system of Hill County.
Said Act provided for the issuance of ro8.dbonds and
for the general improvement of the road system of said
county . Thereafter at the 2nd Called Session of the
same Legislature the above Act was amended by adding
thereto Section %a, which reads as follows:
"That the members of said Commissioners'
Court including the County Judge using automo-
biles in the performance of their duties set
out in Sec. 8 of said House Bill No. 500, are
hereby allowed to use their own private auto-
mobiles, a.nda,11expenses incurred by them
in such use of their private automobiles name-
ly, gasoline, cylinder and lubricating oil,
inner tubes, casing, mechanical upkeep and
vulca.nizing,shall be allowed by said Commis-
sioners' Court as a claim against the County,
on being presented as a formal itemized ac-
count In favor of the member of the commls-
aioners court presenting such account verified
in accordance with Article 3712, Revised Stat-
utes of 1911, and upon such claim being filed
snd s~pproved,ss,meshall be ordered paid by
the Commissioners' Court out of the Road and
Bridge Fund and on such order being entered,
the County Clerk shall draw a warrant on such
fund payable to the member of the commissioners
court in whose favor such claim has been ap-
proved and ordered paid, and which warrant on
being presented to the Soupty Treasurer, shall
be by such Treasurer paid.
Xon. X. I?.BPiggs - Page 3 (V-404)
This Act was sgain maended by the 46th Lsgia-
lalme, Regular Session, p, 872, ch. 10, by adding there-
to Sections 30a md 30b, in nowise affecting Section 8a,
supra; but we.9for the sole purpose of authorizing the
CoDxa.lssionersY
Court of Kill County to issue Road and
Bridge Refunding bonds of said County fop the purpose of
r8funding any and all outstmdlng scrip warrants charge-
able against its Road and Bridge Fund as of February 15,
1939. Other than this, the Act reiuainsunchanged.
The oMgin?tl Act as well eta the amendment of
1919 (Set, 8s) was declared val~ldin the case of Crow
vs. Tinner, 47 S. W. (26) 391, affixed 124 Tex, 368, 78
S.W, (2d) 588. The Court of Civil Appeals tfiPoughChief
JUtice AleX8.ndePwho vPot8 the opinion, in passing upon
the oonetitutlonallty of the Act, had this to saya
“Whether oP not the enactmnt of such a
law was wise or unwise vaa f’oPthe Leglsla-
tUPe t0 det8PiQinO. As steted before, the Leg-
islatuP8 had plpovidsdfoP the voting of bonds
SOP the building of a &8&wroad system in Bill
county. If, st the tlm8 the act in question
was emcted, said county had entep8d upon a
progpam for tbm building of such roads on a
1aPge soale, the eupemision of such work en-
tail8d extPa 1aboP 8nd expense on the conmU.s-
sionem, and fumished sufficient justifica-
tlon to the Legislature to enact d special law
to meet the peouliar conditions bmught a,bout
themby, as was suggasted in Dallas County v,
Plovmn, 99 Tax, 509, 91 S.W. 221, 222. Whether
the oonditiens whloh induced the Legislature to
pass the atitin question have now been Pemoved,
It la not f8~ the oouz% to say0 If th.8appel-
lee feel8 that there vas nevrr anj need folp
eueh a law, OP that the mmditiona which in-
duoed the Legislature to snect same no long8r
emit&, his Pemedg is with the L8gieletuPe and
not with the couPts, In QW opfnlon, t&e act
in question had fop ita sole pu~poa4 the better
mintrnance of the road8 in lUl.1CountIf,tnd Vaa
therefore authorized by the Constitution.
Thepefope, in vS4w of the SoPegoing, you are Pe-
epoctfully advfsad that it is the opinion of this Department
t&at it Sa legal for the County ComleslonePs of Iii11County,
Texas, to opsPat8 the& ovn automobiles OF pickups at county
expense when on official county businsss of malntalting 02”
building p&da0 und8r Soetion g of th8 original A& of 1919,
-- ..
Hon. M. W, Bplggs - Page 4 (V-404)
1. The county auditop is not author-
ized to approve a bill for the pwPchase
of a new automobile POP one of the County
Co~~~issione~sof Hill County since Article
2372f, V,C.S,, is no longer-applicable to
Hill county.
2. It is legal for the County Comnis-
sioners of Hill County to operate their own
automobiles OP pickups at county expense
when on officfal county business OS main-
taining OP building roads under Special
Road Law of Hill County, Aots 1919, 36th
Leg., p* 105, ch. 33, as amended, on which
constitutionality we.supheld in Caow v.
Tinner, 47 3. Wo (26) 391.
Youm vel"Jr
tmly
ATTORNEY BEMERAL OF TEXAS
B&ce Allen
BAadjm Assl,sta.nt
ATTORNEY @ElT%RAL