.*
. .
THEAYTOWNEYGENERAL
OFTEXAS "
Dsc’smber 10, 1948
l&n. Weldon B. Dsvls Opinion NO. v-730
County Attorney
Austin County Re: Tha authority of the
Dellvills i Texas Commiraiaaere~ Court
of Austin County to
.2ssume control over
streets and alleys in
an unincorporated town.
.,
Dear Sir:
Your opinion request presents the following
question:
“Does Austin Cokity, ,throiigh its gov-
ernmental agonof, to-wit, the, Commissioners’
Court of Austin County, have, the right to
assume control over the roads, streets and
alleys in an unincorporated town and to open,
veoate, maintain, etc., the streets, alleys
end roads in such unincorporated town?”
Article 2351, V. C. S. is in part as follows:
Vsch Commissionera’ Court shall:. . .
“3. Lay out and establish, change and
discontinue public roads and highways. . .
"6. Xxercise general control over all
roads, highways, ferries and bridges in their
county .n
Article 6703, V. C. S. provides:
“The commlssionars court shall order the
laying out and opening of public roads when
necessary, and discontinue or alter any road
whenever it shall be deemed expedient. No
J public roads shall be altered or changed ex-
cept to shorten the distance from end to end,
unless the court upon a full investigation
. -
Hon. Weldon B, Davis, Page 2 (V-730)
of the proposed change finds that the public
interest will be better,.served by making the
change; end said change shall be by unani-
mous consent of all the commissioners elect-
ed. No part of a public road shall be dis-
continued until e new road is first built
connecting the parts not discontinued; and
no entire first or second olass road shall
be discontinued except upon vacation or non-
use for a period of three years, Said court
shall assume and have control of the streets
and alleys in all oities end incorporated
towns in Texas whioh have no de facto muni-
cipal government in the active discharge of
their official duties.”
In the case of Blair v. Archer Counte, 192
S.W. 2d 573, the Court stated as follows:
R
. . .
v(l)’ This suit is one brought solely
for the purpose of preventing the defendant
from obstructing the dedicated streets in-
volved and from interfering with the use
thereof by the public.
*It was the duty of the plaintiff, act-
ing through its County Attorney, to bring
such a suit,
"e . .
.
“If the town of Dundee were incorporat-
ed, it would have been its duty, through its
proper officers, to bring suit to. prevent
the obstruction of its streets and alleys,
by a suit for injunction, .
R. . .
“Since the town is not incorporated,
it seems to us that the next municipel cor-
poration, having an interest in keeping open
these streets and alleys within its borders
--namely, the County of Archer--was the prop-
er party. to bring the injunction suit.”
c
Hon..,Wrldon B. Davis, Page 3 (V-730)
The above case wea reversed in Blair v.
Archer County (Sup. Ct.) 195 S. W. (26) 348, solely
on jurisdictional grounda, but the opinion did not
otherwise disturb the opinion of the Court of Civil
Appeals.
By virtue of the foregoing authorities, It
is the opinion of this office that all roads, streets,
and alleys which are a part of the County Road System
lying within en unincorporated town may be controlled
and maintained by the Commissioners* Court of Austin
county. Therefore, your question should be answered
in the affirmative.
Austin County, throua its Commissioners1
Court, has authority to aasum oontrol of and
maintain roads, streets, and alleys of an un-
incorporated town which are e part of the Le.
County Road System.
Ydurs very truly,
ATTOEEIEY
GENERALOF TEXAS
Burnell Waldrep
BW:m: bh Assiatant
APPROVED: