Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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