OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eonoreblo Ii. P. Spxton
County Attorney
Orange County
Onage, !Fexas
Gear Sir:
after 2 county-zlde
1943, a stock 1.m election was
voted on by the cntlre
‘For
the Stock Law. * Tim
proper proclnmat:on ~a6 mniieand posted, ma fit
th8 present tirx hogs, bee:, ccr'seats are not
freeholCers
EllOWea t0 run 2t lZr,“e in Crznfp binfy.
for
"On Dece&z 9, lCL3, u?on a getltlon EI~I-
ed by of n certT.lnsu?s:Xvlelonof
Ox-w+ County, t'neComii3slonerisCowt omlered,
End the County Ju2:~e16~~3~ such order, e:II
election to he held in euch subdlvlsion on Jzn-
uary 25, 3.941,ta deteraine whether cattle, hogs,
iionorableW. P. Sozton, Page 2
sheep, goats, horses, mules, jncks end jennets
should be allowed to run zt large In suci sub-
dlvl6lon.
*It has been called to the attention of
the Commissioner's Court thnt such election, If
held, %ould be invalid end void for the reason
set forth in the ettached brief, P&C?even though
void, If such election resultea in aefeet of
the proposition, a great de21 of confusion would
exist in such subdivision as to Just whzt the
law w&s regerdlng stook, to s&g nothing of the
unnecesst?ryexpense incurred by the County in
holding such election.
'I would like to hriveyour opinion ea to
the legality of such election, and, if in you?
oplnlon such electlqn would be void, oa.nthe
Commissioner's Court ennui end rescind their
order before Jenuery 25, end cell-off &uoh eleo-
tion. lleese bee.rin mind the.tthe objections
ere leveled not et the mannor or form of hold-
ing such election, but et the complete lack of
authority of the Commissioner's Court to order
such election. d
In our opinion No. O-2389, we have briefly re-
viewed the history of the statutory law dealing with the
regulation of stock running at large. iie quote from sala
oalnlon as follows:
I
*Section 23, Article 16 of the State Con-
stitution provides that:
a1Th8 Legislature may pees laws for the
reylgtlon of live stock and the protection of
stock ralsere In the stock relslng portion of
the State, and exempt from the operr.t?on of
su'chLisa other portions, sectLo%i, or counties;
and shell haV8 pouer.to pass generel and s?ecla~
lms for thawInspection of csttle, stock end
hides end for the regulation of brands; provld-
ed, that any local lerrthus pzssed shz?.11 be sub-
mitted to tinefreeholders of the section to be
affected thereby, ana Eppr.oveaby them, before
it shall go into effect.,!
i:onorebleI!.?. Sexton, ?:a?e3
*The constitutionA po;ierof the Lexlsle-
ture esterds to ti-,e ennctnent of loccl option
legs prohibiting the runnln,?at lsr,?eof stock.
Tne Lcglsloture GEE froa the to tim ?zcsea
SUCh 12~ %nd has euthorlzed 8lectlOIS t0 be
held in counties 2nd sub-alvlslons thereof. The
first l2w paSEed RuthOriZed eleCtiOn2 t0 g.ZS8
on aroposltlons prohibiting ~mll livestock,
horn,,Sheep 2nd goats from running et large.
Later, in 1099, the Le$slzturc proviaea Sor
elections 2s to the running et lsrge cf horses,
mUl8S, JL?C!XG, Jennets an!lcattle. Texes Jurls-
m\udenc8, Vol. 39, pege 354; zx ?2rte Coden,
163 S. ‘:J.539; IZobPrhonva. St&e, 63 s. :I.884;
Slshop vs. St&te, 167 S. ;d.363.*
The stock 12-dunder which t’necounty-wlae election
k-29held In Orange County dealing with the re&atlon of stock
running at lerge lnclualng speclflcally hogs, sheep or go2ts,
ziccoralngto your letter, eppeere to be krtlcle 6330, of the
Revised Civil Statutes, 1925. This Article wes first enacted
in 1876 2nd zmended in 1909. It ~2.6brou$?t forward as Arti-
cle 7209 in the 1911 Revlsea Civil St2tutes.
Prom your request petltloners who now 2re seeking
to hold 8n election in 2 subalvlslon of Cr;lngeCounty, sppear
to be attempting to act, In part, under the provisions of
Chapter 6 of Title Xl, of the Revised Civil St&tutes, being
Artlclet6954 to 69’71,incluslve. Seid 2rtioles provide for
10~21 option elections to *determine whet&r horses, mules,
jacks, Jennets and c2ttle &hall run et large* in the partla-
Ulhr named counties or their subdivisions, desorlbe the pro-
cedure for such elections 2nd the effect of the adoption or
such 1RWS.
The 1911 Revleea Clvll Stntutes, csrrled Article
6954 as Article 7235. Its substance is practically the s2ne
in both revisions with the exception of the number of n2oed
counties. Orenze County is not lncluaed among the nened
~oountiesof faia Artiole 7235.
Yne first thing to be determined in this o>inlon
1s lqhetherOmnge County now comes clthln the provisions of
iztlcle 6954 2nd the’other suoczeainx crticles ln Chayter 6
of Title 121 of the Revised Clvll Statutes, 1925.
Tr&clng’a.cktillof ih8 amendments-Of titlcie 6954,
that we h2ve been able to flna, It appears that the nane of
zonornble V. P. Sexton, Page 4
Crstqe County ltms first lncluee? t%reln in K:ouseBill 495,
cl. 97, p. 194, of the Genersl Lzws of the Acts of tile
Tzirty-el+th Leglslnture, 19?3. It ~1~0 2gTecro tht
Orm,;P County FZS not mEat to bc Included by the C+gtion
of the bill, xhich we quote es follows:
#.b Act to amend P.rtlcle 7235, Chagter 6,
Title 124, ikvisec?Civil Statutes of Texx, 1911
2~ anendd by Chagter 72, Genmal Lme of the
34th Legisletnre, an3 Chapter 131, Generd Lr-~1s
of the 35th Legislature, and Chapter 10 of the
3rd Called Seeslon of the 35th LeglcletuTe, er,cl
Cicxptr 13 of the 4th Celle:?Session of the 35th
Leglsfature, end Chapter 105 of the hctsof tile
i?cgularSession of the 36th Legislature, and
Cnzpter 50 of the Generd Lms of the 3rd Celled
Session of the 36th Leglsleturk, and Chz?ter
32 of tke General Laws of the Re&er Session of
the 37th Legislature, en8 C:?e?ter10 of the Gen-
eral Lmvs of the First Called Session of the
37th Legislature with refErence to the mode of
preventlq horsee and certeln other ~nlmls from
running at large in the counties rimed ED es to
include Leon and Refugio, Ft. aen6 Counties.*
As ln&lcateU above, 6renge County was lncluderl in the b0ag
of B. s. 495 az one of the name3 counties therein.
@tide 6934 WEE again amended by 5. 8. 31, Ch.
56, g. 197, of the General Laws of the Acts of the 39th Leg-
lslature, 1925, to inclu?ieaddltlonnl counties. Orange
County 1s not included in the crption o: this Act but does
appear in the body of the Act.
At the same session of the Legislature, lest re-
ferred to, Article 6954 was tqaln amended by :j..3. 576, Ch.
99, p. 274, of the Qeneral Lms, so as to include two sddl-
tioml counties. The caption Eoes not lncluao Orenge County,
although it does agpecr In the body of the wended Act.
P&e name of Ormge County was omitted fro3 the
body of the next an?enriment
~hlc:?~2s X. 1. Ai%, Ch. 101,
3. 277, of tP.eGeneral LEVS of the Acts of the TMrty-nlnth
Legislature 1925. %e caption of tl;elast Act gueorts to
me28 it so zs to include certdn specific counties. ;iothlng
in the c6;ltlonsignifies an intention to onit Orange County
from the menaea Act,
Xonorable W. P. Sexton, ?oqe 5
In the 1925 P.cvlsedCivil Statutes, Article 6954
does not include the nane of Orsnze County. Keithor of the
subsequent anendmentc, which 2re numerous, dovn to Cete,
heve Included ecid county.
Articles 6954 to 6971, lnoluslve, is a stock
12~ ect applicable only to a particular-3x-t of the legls-
latlve jurisdiction, i. e., cert2In n2med cguntles 8nd Is
therefore a local or special 12~. Barnlson v. ~.uzu'dl,300
S. Y. 190; aarron v. ?oyloE, 21 S. Y. (%I) 716; Vincent v.
Stnte (Coma. App.) 235 S. FI.1084; ComnIasionerst Court
v. Garrett (Cosm. Anp.), 236 9. !I.970. rjclng8 specie1 or
10~21 12~ It does not epply to counties of the State of
Texts that are not speclficelly nemed therein. (See euthor-
itles cited above).
ktlcle III, Section 35, of the Texas Constitu-
tion, de216 with the requlrement of the title or csptlon
of bills of the Legislature; A title expreeslng 2 purpose
'to axend a statute in 2 certain particular Is deceptive 2nd
.- dsleading insofar as the body of the Act purports to emend
the ptior in other pcrtlculars. Y2ra Csttle & ?asture Co. v.
Carpenter (S. Ct.) 200 S. W. 525; ZasIlton v. St. LOUIS,
s. F. 2 T. I?. co., 115 Tex. 455, 283 9. C. 475; Arnold v.
Leonard, 114 Tex. 535, 253 9. W. 799. Ye desire to quote
from the c&se of %2rd Cattle E;Pasture Co. v. Carpenter,
sup-a, as follows:
*The purpose of the constitution21 provi-
sion In resr,eotto the title of leglslstlve nets
'1s eel1 understoob. It 1s tinatby ne2ns of the
title the legisl2tor may be reesonebly 2pprised
of the scope of the bill so that surprlse and
fraud In legisletlon say be prevented. . . ."
The anendatory 2ct 15 void to the extent thst its
provisions go beyond the expressed limitation or the scope
of the title.' Arnold v. Leoncrd, 114 Tex. 535, 273 S. ';IT.
799; :?Slk 5 r V . State, 134 Crln. Rep. 500, 116 S. Y. (2a) 1076;
Lendr-unv. Centennial Rursl ?ilghSchool District Ko. 2, (Clv.
.hp,) 134 5. Y. (2d) 353; 34 Tex. Jurls. Sec. 43, pa. 104-105,
2nd cases cited.
Slnoe the caption of etch anerd!rentBees not in-
/-. clude Grz.n,oe County’ond the expreesed pur?oEe shown in er?c‘h
czptlon Is to amend the statute so as to include s??eciflo2lly
nanea oountie-s,It i3 our opinion, under the suthorltles citea,
.-.&I
xonorable W. i). Sexton, Tage 6
that Orange County or its subdivisions have never been prop-
erly included within the provisions of Article 6954 and
that it, or its subdivision, cannot lawfully hold an elec-
tion under the provisions of that article.
Tiiere16 no inherent rlght in the people, whether
~of the State or some political subdivision thereof, to hold
an election without the authority for holding same belng
autnorlzed by law. ?illlis.ms v. Glover, (Clv. A?>.) 253 S. %'.
,?57; Trustees of Independent Zchool District MO. 57 v. Elhon,
(Clv. A~P~)~F~;~;. ?I.1039; Count? v. Zltchell, (Corm. hpp.)
36 s. iJ. o ; Smith v. Xorton,Inde?cnBent School District,
(Clv. A?p.Y 85 S. W. (2&j 653, error dismlsse~. Tnerefore,
it Is our oplnlon, that the legally defined ~u3Alvl6lon of
or
Orange County, referre8 to In your rccucst, cannot legally
ho10 the election contemplated and that the Gomnlssloners~
Court of Orange County, a E -sellas its County Juiige,have no
power authorlty to order the election to be held on Jan-
uary 25, 1941. Any such orders would be without authority
and therefore void. The Commlssloners~ Court an& County Judge,
esch, acted purely in a leglslntlve or rdmlnlstratlve caDaolty
BE representatives of the county and therefore their reepec-
Dive orders can be and 6hould be rescinded. August A. sush &
Coqany v. Caufleld, et al, 135 S. W. 244; Colllngs~:orthCounty
v. Eyers, 35 S. W:414’ Austin Zros. Srldge Co. v. Doad Dls-
trict No. 3 (Clv. A2g.j 247 S. W. 647; 11 Tex. Jurls. Sec. 34,
pp. 573, 574.
The next thing to be determined 1s whether the con-
templated election can be lawfully ordered end held un3er
Pxtlcle 6330 and succeeding articles of Section 2 of Title
121, Revised Civil Statutes, 1925.
Your reqest shows that the people of Orange County
have already voted favorably for the adoption of the regulation
of "hogs, sheep and goatsa running at large wlthln said county
as provided in ArtlcIe66%0-6253 inCb.ISlVe. For that reason
Article 6944 16 applicable, we think, to subsequent elections
.wlthln a subiilvlelonof Orenge County. That article provides
as follows:
"After the adoption of the stock Ia?:In
any county or 6UbdiVlslOn, no election under
the preoedlng artloles 6haII be held wlthln the
same prescribed Ilmlte in Iess than tY0 year6
after an eleatlon under this law has been held
,r‘ i-ionorsble
!>Y.
?. Sexton, ?sge.7
therein; but at the explratlon of thet time the
commlssloners court of each county In the State,
whe.neverpetitioned to do 60 by e mnjorlty of
tilefreeholde-s, !p.).
For all of the foregoing reasons we do not think
It Is necessary to answer the other matters subrclttedin your
reqeet.
,-