xwaerable Job0 XL sbeb
Crida8i Diatrkt Attorney
sub Antedo. fww
Dau ear:
opialom xwaawr 04139
Re: Doe. tba w8rraat law permit
tba io*wwe d tin30 rrrraata
te
k lp M t
o nM ylateral
r wd8.
o r dea ld
th e n
lKi.t
w* Uk wwledg e r ec eip
d y t o ur
OJda ia
r q ao 8.t
d
Aa#wt l4, Ml Qwte from your ktter a8 t-t
“‘PO.0 tbo warrut hw prdt tu to tssw time
wurMtetok*patwylatualrodo,orabould
before w8rrua cu k wed
Tkmpowusdtbe coanmiW~rs* Cwrta b nlaaat
Co~btli~galuo~~rolld8,~glu~o~to[Luutleafor
tbe parpew. are gowrwd w&ally by tba ltatutw. This foliowa from
tbe coaxxmutdof tbe Cowtitutloa. Artlcb ll. seuttw 2. that tlm laying
art, construct md repriring of web raadm .I141 k prewidad for by
gewr81 hwo. srticle 239, PTernon’aAnnotated CIviI Stitatas, pwwidm
-xcach~*a~corvtahaul
“3. lay wt and establish.
chase and dia-
cwtlwa pebm roads ad highways.
+**+
‘6. lb~rclw gomoral comtrd over all roads.
atghwaya. forrlee ad brtdea tn their cowtlea.w
*ower te iawe time warrant8 in paymarhtfor tha con-
lWtia 0efr ea d8 ha sb ees la np lied
fr o mth eda tya d wtb * to
c o wtr wta a lmaLa.a itav. rLoper, 217 SiW. 3738 an alw Sa8
Fwxkio Gouaty V. M&lam, S8 Ten. 243; Strattw v. Commiaaiomera’
coo& I37 s.w. llto: Mema v. Mc~%ll, 146 S. lk’.(Zd) 332.
In~dtl#forvpoirywa~thrttacrC~a~ra’
Court has adhority b iaaw timr wariants for impr0Wawrt of all
cowty rwda, sad we hww of w wthwity that reqairea the Comda-
& me;*’
Co ur
tet
lp dfy
thapadfie
e road o rroads t0
b e
h p r 0W&
WhenwapuKkroadaareaamedLntha0otkeaad
order it wwld be t0 the diacreliom of the Comnai~alwora’ Cwrt to
iaaaa the warrwtm for the iaaprovemwt ef any cewty rod Brown v.
pmtop couuty court, 90 8. E. ti6t wright v. AUW. ZS7 S. W. 980.
X0wever. if the CwmaksaIeWrd Cwrt sees fit to
l~ce~r~~~~*~o+br.~~aro~~~
L@AyAT a cwdlK08 la tho amtiw sad order whkhfisw
ilmpmw& SW Moore v. cdfm 300 s. w. 3w;
Fletcher v. Sly. S3 9. W. U7. When the reads are Km8 desigaate+& the
Commiaaianr**Ceurtmwtimprweth0w partk8lar reads. Blaeb
v. sbagth, 346 s. w. 79.
h reply to w diwuaaiw of Article i?36&, Verwda
Amwtated Civil statute*, tbia *p-t ba8 always cigltemded that
~aartlc&~asstr#raAptb~totrtL&gprpowafor~a
cowty may lawhlly laaw time warraata. Saidarticle marely re(p-
k~Sfarcktrll~llnukOdplbllcim~~bl,C~~Sraa
and preacribe~ the stepswhich must k taken prier
mrralcipalitlea
to the iaauaaced evidewea d iadabtrdnmma for much lmprevemanta.
This ctiowrzOn wu wphsld in the case d Adam@ v. hAsGill, aopra.
I
H0a0rable Joha R. shwk. pair, I3
SpadfkaUy aaaweriag yau qwatlw, it is oar 0piaioatbat
Un Comadaaitmora* Coarl has tba authority to imw tima warraata
to improva say lateral road la Uu cowty. X8imauiag a&l warraate
thw e
a r mus
t comply
t ltricUy with tin terms d 4irUck ;L36&. If
a almarpacy vista, mashas im defiaed la Section 5 of Article 23691,
thw the restrict&ma impawd by Sutimm 2.3 and 4 ot aaid lr Uc la
de wt apply.
With raferace to tin $80.0@0 iaaw d &oad and Bridge war-
ruts meaUoaed ia poor rqwat, this department 0fficiaUy apprwed
this imaot on August 21, 1941.when part of the isaw was fuadod into
bwds.
True- that this aaawua ywr qwatiw, we an
ATTORXEY GEMERAL OF TEXAS
ti /a/ Clad 0. BaoUuwa
ClMdO.BUthSiW
Assist&at
APPROVEDAUG.t6.1941
APPROVED
OPXNXOLOCOMMXTTEE
BY BWB
cHAxlwlAN
I