OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonorablo
u. A. D8Vl8
stae Regirtru
Tex~r State Board of Health
Audln, Tour
You have repuerted rtment 8 revisv OS
our oplnlon HO. o- ructlon 81 to how
to prooeed in the ier of birth
reoordr of perron tating that in
the part you hav i08 when ordered
to do 80 br 8 QO
8 determination
aenelderqd iheeqw
W%8diOtiOll
477,
V.rtiOll’8 Revi8ed
8aUa964l O? 8 cectlflcd
ato vhez'elnl ohlld or an
‘Udlb88 8UOh oertified
tent jUri8diOtiOn."
Heither AFti prOV18iOn Oi th0 OOLk8ti-
.Oc;rl’t 8peOif9.0 jlU?i8diO-
aertlfled OOpie8, but UU-
der Seotion 8 of Artlole V OS the ConrtitutIonof Texa8, oh&oh
provibc8 that the dirtriot oourt *rh811 h4ve gener81 origin81
jurisiriationover all oau8e8 OS a&ion vhatever for vhloh a
remedy or jUrl8diotlOn18 not provided by l&Y Or thi8 oOn8ti-
tutlon,' Ye held that the di8triCt court ha8 jWd8diotiOn to
Order the 188umoe of ruoh oertitled OOp1e8.
Honorable U. A. Davlr, p8ge 2
&I XO‘our 1Ott.r WJUO8ting thi8 OpilliOll YOU point
out that, vherear the above montloned prohibition lg e ln8t
Uu iaruanoe of oertlfled oopler of birth reoordr of 110
legltlu8te8,vhioh va8 oont8lned la the or1 laal Vital Stat-
i&i08 AOt Of 1927, i8 8till r eta ined,
Jetflt.l’ uPrIldllWnt8
authorire the judge of the probate oourt to aoorpt and ap-
prove the reoord of q btith or death not p~vlousl~ reg-
lr ta a d, and luthorlae regi8trOr8 to 188u8 oeatgled OOpib8
of birth or death oortliloatea,vlthout in either oa8e mak-
ing a d&8tinotlonbotveen IrgitWte 8nd lllegltlmatebirth.
But thi8 do.8 not maan that th8 prohibitory rovirion ha8
beu, repealed by $nplloatton.,fho rule 18 8Pated thou in
39 Texor Jurlrprudenoe, PU!-241
'In oa80 of ocmfllat brtveen a genrer& ;g
vision snd a 8peolal provirlon deal
8W rubjet?&,the i0PB.l'i8 Or liBit-
ld by the bttorj and m8 18 80 vhether th.
provi8ion8 in quertion are oontalnod in the
88~ oat or Lo dIffereat enaotmenttl.In other
vord8, vh8n a 8tatute make8 a gen8ral provl-
8100 &~@lltl~ iOr 4u 08808 and a 8p8Oia1
provlrlon ror a portioular oa80 or olarr, the
Sormw ~alld8 and the latter prevail8 in so Sar
l8 the ~tiOl&P 0880 OF 0188r 18 oonmm%ed.
& 8u8h OirOUlUt8Me8, th0 8JlOOia1pFOVi8iOll
or rtatuta 18 regarded ai though it were 8n lx-
oeption or provlrh, rmovlrlg 8OBetw f'rOl8
the operation of the generrillav.'
Smtlon 16 OS Artlolq~!Vof the Texar Qoxutitutlon
preroriber the oozutitutlonaljurl8dlotlonof the oountl o;m&,
lnoludlng 'the general jurlrdlotlonOS a Probate Court.
YO knov or.no ,laibringing the irruame of a oartiiled oopr-
or a birth oertlrl8ate, 0r it88ii, viathinth8 gonrral jUri8-
dlotlon OS a probate aourt.
Seotlon 22 of Artlole V of the Conrtitutlon de-
oluer:
'The ~girlatum 8hall have paver, by looal
or gerural lav, to lnorea8o, diaieirh or ohangr
the 01~11 and orimlnal jurlrdlotlonoi oountr
C!OWt8j and in Oa8e8 Or 01178uOh ohange Of jur-
l8diotlon, the Leglrlatwe lhall al80 oonform
the jurl8dlotlcmof the other 80urt8 to ru8h
ohonge.gf, .'.,
a.
Honorable Y. A. DIvir, page 3
UIldOr thi8 OOIi8titUtiOAal &3POViliM, 4 8t4tUtO Om-
ierring original jurlrdiotlon on oounty oourtr of Deaf Smith
County in 01~11 08808 vhero the amount in aontroverry 988
00.00 op 1088 war held oon8tltutlonal. Camplay v. Bwmley,
rCOBB. App.) 55 8. V. (26) 810,
In the ea8e of Jon08 v. Ni880ur1=Xan8*8-%ua8 Rall-
road Compeny of Texa8, 14 S. Y. (2d) 357, the Boll48 Oourt
Of oiYii 4peal8 84idl
“ktiole 1956 (1771 (1169), R. s. 1925,
read8 I ‘Subjeot to the LBI tation rtatad in
thl8 idaapter(;lurlrdlotionallimltatlon),the
OOunty OOwt 18 authorlsed t0 hen? and determine
any o&we vhloh 18 oognirable b yaourtl, llthar
or l&v or equity, and to pant any relldr uhioh
y2Bdjbo ranted br raid OOWt8, or olther of
.
.It tollov8 therefore that oounty oourtr
ruy lxerolre the power of both i&v ml equity
oourtr in the trial Of any oawo over vhloh
they are given jurlrdiotlon,inoludin~, 0r
00ur80, a oondemuotion prooeeding, Yhloh 18 to
bo tried and determIned 88 8ny other oivll
oawo ."
But it 18 noted that in both of the oarer above
olted, the oounty oourt had jqi8diOtion of the 8UbjeOt mat-
ter of the oau8e involved by rea8on of a 8peolflo oonrtltu-
tlonal or itatutory enaotment. The oounty oourt, along with
the jwtloo wurt, ha8 but llmfted jUri8diotionin thil
State. Jaoo v. W. A. Rarb Coinpan, 269 8. N. 1089i R. 0.
Elpp Ocmpany v. Anglln, 270 S. l?.B93.. And we do not believe
that the provi8lon8 oi Artlole 1956, 8u a, are applloable
to any e&we over vhloh the oountp oourr ir not given jur-
18diotlon by 8&ieoiiiO rtatutory or OOli8titUtiO-1 provl8lon8.
It 18 therefore our OplDAon that the oounty oourt
18 not a oourt oi ooapetont juvl8dlotlonto order the lrru-
anon of a oertlfled aopy oi a birth orrtlfloateot ati119
legitlmato r8on, and heme, that the State Regirtrar 18
vlthout aUt rOrity t0 i88Ue 8Uah oortlfled Copy upon the or-
- der OS thr oounty oourt.
Yours very truly