Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon. B. IF. Walters opinion Ro. O-2928 County Auditor Rer Cormaissionsrs’ court not author- Smith County ized to expend county funds for decor- Tyler, Texas ating court houselawn during Christmas season. Dear Sir: Your request for opinion has been received and care- fully considered by this department. We quote from your re- quest as followsr

Vlease advise also if the Commissioner’s Court may legally expend county funds to match or augment funds raised by the local Chamber of Commerce or the ret&:11 merchants of Tyler to provide light fixtures necessary to decorate the Court House lawn during the Christmas season.”

Je ire unable to find any constitutional or statu- tory authority for the expenditure of county funds by the com- missioners’ courts for the purpose above described.

We quote from 11 Texas Jurisprudence, pages 563-4-5, as follows:

“Counties, being component parts of the state, have no powers or duties except those which are clearly set forth and defined in the Constitution and statutes. The statutes have clearly defined the powers, prescribed the duties, and imposed the liabilities of the commissioners’ courts, the medium through which the different counties act, and from those statutes must come all the authority vested in the counties.... I, . . ..Commlssioners~ courts are courts of lim- ited jurisdiction, in that their authority extends only to matters pertaining to the general’ welfare of their counties s.nd that their powers are only those expressly or implledly conferred upon them by l~‘r’, that is, by the Constitution and st.:tuteS of the state....”

Hon. B. T. Walters, page 2

The courts of Texas have repeatedly held that county commissioners' courts may exercise only such author- ity as is conferred by the Constitution and statutes of this state. There are abundant authorities to this effect. We cite the following:

Article 5, Section 18, Texas Constitution; fiticle 2351 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas; 11 Texas Jurisprudence pages 563-566; , Bland v+ Orr 39 S.W. 126) 558. Nun&Warren $ubllshing Co. vs.'Rutchinson County, 45 S.W. (2d) 651; Hogg VI Campbell, 48 Se& (2d) 51 j Landwan v. State, 97 S.W. 2d) 26.a't El Paso County V. Elain, 10 s S.W. 3433 Howard v. Hbdrrson County, 116 S.W. (24) 791; DObson V.'Marshall, 118 S-W* (2d) 621; hilills County 8. Lanpasas County, 40 S.W. 404. We enclose herewith copies of opinions Eos. O-1001, and 0-2629 of this department, which daal with the lack of authority of tha Commissioners 1 Court to expend county funds for purposes not clearly authorized by the Constitution or stbtutrs.

You are therefore respectfully advised that It is the opinion of this dapartment that your question should br answered In the negative, and it is so answered.

Very truly yours

ATTORNEYGEtURAL OF TEXAS By /s/ Wm. J. Fanning Wti. J. Fanning, Assistant

APPROVEDDz i0, 1940 /s/ Grover Sellrrs FIRST ASSISTANT A!J!TORNEYGENERAL

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE BY: BWB, Chairman

WJF:AWtwb