OFFICE OJ=THE ATTORNEY dENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
enarabS@ JOO JTels&~
c:ief dccountunt
pJsrd cX couuty and District Bead Indcbtefiness
nlg+ey Dulldini: ~.
~XltAI, pnxio
nslr Sir: . ‘.’ Opinion Nb. O-6706
He:
he aid undoer Section 6 of the ‘Bond
which states *__ or afiy road that
9s cm3titutot a part .of.paid Systea and
eou or may be ch,ance,ob, ralocatcd or abnn-
her snld indcbtednoss is nou ovidonced by
t.hs o~S.i~~ti.0~ originally iss~@I or by refunding ob-
li~ationn or both.’ Under this aoction of the law the
bog&s cr Red I’i3.vcr County have bbeon parilcipnting~in
tho County and l;
.. .
%e have exeuined the stetutos relatlnS to ‘the ‘$o’ders ..
&I duties of the State H3.&uay Comnln’slon qnd Cdlzlissionors’
Courts, aad ve have beon curable to find any statute authori&q ...
the ccmtrect ~tlrtit was ln cmz’cct duriug the year I942, It is.
~damntal tltit the Co*misolonors~ Court3 .ancl the State’ Cosrt-
ncnt can bnly pe~fom thoso duties and oatcr t?to contracts that
am outhorhod by tbo’ Coostltution azd/qr statutes of thin State.
tbo. Suprtmo OouPt of !i'oxas in the Case Of City of RiS SRrlng
v, %!Frd, 169 9, il. (24 151, 153,. atatod: _
‘. “It wu8 corly anuouncod 33 6111s v, City of.
Cloburno, (Tex. Ct. Clv. App, ) ‘35 3. l!. 495, emor
refused, that them mst be authority of la3 for the
co<iact of a Ialnlcipal corporation, enii to give it
vaU.dity such authority must oxfst vhon the con-
tract-var rcede‘and if hit does not then oxlst, the’
contraot camot there& ter ba ratlfiod.” .
It is lIbm&-mentaS thet e county co3miso3.0norsi court _
or a otete departmgt can porfom only those duties and e&r
into va3id contmcts oxcspt X.?henauthorLzod to do 80 by the Con-
stitution aid. f3tetutcs of thla state. city of Rig Spring v. ; ..
Ward, 16 3. U. (&I.) l-51; Potter Countg.v. Slau&tor ‘Cattle Co%-
Fany, ‘25$ s.. v. 775.
‘Since the contract vat exeoutod by 11~4 Rtver County &it:
the State IiiSh\iag ComisnRon prior to the cnaot~~~t.~.-Ghaptez* 24$,
6upra, and jl3-vtev of the euthozltios cited above, ‘tie ore oP the
opinion that’ the bozds of Red River Comty that uem uae&fn the
conntzuction of this rood should continue to parti.cLpate ia the
County end Road District lN&z.y~ fund, unlosa or untlrl. e. ‘Beg Con-
tract ie executed es e~~t;ho;~:ic~~by %hapt+ 2-N.
’ &de?the provisiom of Chapter .244. the Stnto Eight!uy
Cou!nlnsion 13. authorlzcd to -doni~~ato fam-to-msket roads pro-
~~cbcl “tho comisc1onora ’ court of the county in trhioh any. such
COuuty roes7 is locntod ahaIl paso anil ontcr ;Ln its t2inutos ail
oKloP uaivin3 any rl,@t3 3uch cowty, 13a.yhave for, partlcipatj.oni
by the otntc: jn my ludohto~ncss ~.ncurl;ocl by tho comty til the
Constructic;l of. such cowty road, ”
mnoqiible’ Jot
‘AS uo construe ths’ctstuto, t&o county kst first
relinquich or naive any rl&ht Chut itmy have to pmtloipato
In the .County tad Rod District Hl&hwey Pund, thcreforo,. if a
county should entor into a contract with the Gtata.Y!&my Con-
nimlon~ OB euthorlead by Chapter 244, anid county i~o not en-
titled to participate in mid County and Boad District Fii&Iay
FUQ~, lmofns na ito county rocda Imve been d.eoigmted OS Par+
BY
‘.. . .
. .