Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Honorable I. Predeoki County Auditor; Galveston County Galveston, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-7092 Re: May time warrants be issued for the purpose of erecting an arena and pavilion for cattle exhibitiona? Xc acknowledge receipt of your oplni~onrequest of recent date, and quote from your letter as follows: "Reference Is made to the above numbered opinion in connection with expenditure of County funds for the purpose stated, and.whiah It was he1d.U the opinion that I received from you, rendered by Honorable J. A. Rllis, Assistant Attorney General, and approved August'Tth, 1945, by the first Assistant Attorney General that the funds in the County Park Fund whioh had been budgeted for the p.urposeof erecting an arena and pavilion for cattle exhibitions, could ,not be used for that purpose. "In Opinion Ro. O-2461 addressed to the County Attorney of El Paso County and approved on June 27th, 190, a copy of which was-sent'to me, it was held that time warrants Par the construotion of a live- -stock exhlbition building could not legally be lasued. "After receiving the opinions referred to, I transmitted to County Judge Theodore R. Robinson of Wlvejton Couilty'theInformation, and he has in- formed.me that he went.tomAustin and oonsulted with your department a8 to the method of paying for the livestock building'structures that were to be erected, and that you advised him time warrants could begissued for this purpose. Honorable I. Predeckl, page 2 (O-7092) "KPndly render me your opinion In connection with the issuance of tFme warrants for this purpose." Our opinion Number o-2461, addressed to the County Attorney.of El Paso County and dated June 27, 1940, was evi- dently sent to you by mistake. ~The Fdentlcal question in- volved Ftithat opihi'onVas passed on by the 21 Paso Court-of Civil Appeals'on December 12, 1940, in the case of Adams et' al v. McGill-et al,' 146 S. W. (2d) 332~(writ.of error refused'). ThLsDepartment Intervened Fn that case on behalf Of the State of Texas. Article 2372d of Vernon% Annotated Civil Statutes, reads in part as follows:, "Section 1. All counties in the State acting bv and through their reaoective.Commissioners' Courts m&provide &or annual exhibits ~~horticultural and agrlculturalyoducts, livestock and mineral products, and such other products as are of Interest to the community. In connection therewith. such counties may also establish and maintain museums, including the erection -- of the,necesaarg buildings and ,other Fmprovementa, In their own counties or 1ZXn~er county or cFty~in.the United States, where fairs or expositiona are being held. %?a. 2. The Commlaaioners' C'ourtsof the re- spe'ctive,aountLesor the CommPssionerst Courts of several counties q ay'cooperate wlth each other and - participate with local interests in providing-for the creation-of such buildings and other improvements as may be neoessary to accomplish the puPpose rentioned In'Section 1, of this Act and for the assembling, ~srecting, and maintaining of such hoi-tiaultural and agricultural, livestock and mineral 'exhibits,and the expenses incident thereto..." The El Paso Court held tha,tunder this statute author- izing a county to provide for annual exhlbitlon of hortioultural and agricultural products, but not expressly conferring power to issue time'warrants to pay for improvements constructed for such purpose, a.county had "implied power" to issue time warrants payable over a period of years for improvements on livestock and a@icultural exhibition buildinga. We quote from the opinion of the court, as follows: Honorable I. Predecki, page 3 (O-7092) "In the case of Brldgers v. City of Lampaaas, Tex.Civ.App.249 SW.l083,1084, writ of error refused, this distinotion is drawn with great clarity. Then opinion is by that great jurist, Judge Key. In the opinion this proposition, taken ~fromappellant's brief',was approved: 'It is generally conceded.and will established that q unlolpal corporations are in- vested by impllcat.ionwith the power to contract on the general credit'of the city with respect to such improvements as they are authorized to make.' The section we have referred to above -inRuling Case Law was quoted from with approval Fn the course of'the opinion. The same section is cited In the case of Clark v. W. L. Pearson & Cog.,121 Tex. 34, 39 S.W. 2d 27, 31, as sustaining the following proposition: 'The rule is well established that munFcipal'corp- orations are invested at least with an implied-or incidental power to contract on the general credit of the city wlth respect to such improvements as they are authorized by law t'omake.' Among the numerous cases cited by Judge Sharp in support of the proposition Is the case of Lasater v. Lopez, 110 Tex. 179, 189, 217 S. W. 373. "It is-true that-the foregoing two Texas cases we have.cited and briefly'dlscussed Involve the power of cities. The case of Lasater v. Lopez, supra, cited by Judge Sharp, involves a county. But we see no valid reason why the reasoning doeb not apply to the action of a'county acting within the orblt of its authority conferred by law." Youare advised/therefore, It is the.opinion of'this Department that Galveston County, subject to the present re- strictions imposed by the Constitution and general 1aws;haa the power to issue'time warrants in payment for improvements expressly authorized, to'-wit:for the purpose of erecting an arena and pavilion for cattle exhibitions.,provided that the applicable regulations relating to the issuance of such warrants are observed. Very truly yours ATTORRRY QERRRALOP TEXAS By: /s/ Glaud 0. Boothman Claud 0. Bobtbman :;B&v$&RB 21 1946 Assistant /a/ Carlo8 Ashlhy FIRST ASSISTART ATTORNEY EiENERAL APPROVED OPIHION COPlIEIITTRR BY /s/BWB CHAIRMAM