Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

QERALD c. MANN A- 1s.-

Honorable Leo Presnell Cbtity Attiiti&sey up;*hti, CoSCi .' ffllmer,Texas 'Dear Sir: :Oplnlon.~oorO~IOOa I@: Sbi~,foiltq4nd ohntq exiter .Patb e‘ps.&nsr&lp ln%he pureha of~‘&d~toi’ g&l&r for road and;street~repelr .'rOrk? YoW request ~for en oplnicihontha aboa* stated qu&- tion haa been reoeliredby this 0ffi04. Your letter reads in pi& ,s fi+ows: "In purches,eof ~a i&otor.gr&:iler for 'roe'h end street repair wO5k; 00Uld 5h6 Ctiii-~ olesloners' 6:0&t of Upshui+C&tJi legally' &u?er.lnto-a -p&rt&&hip &greem6nt~with the city of Qllmer.whersby'eeoh ti9ul.dpey,@B equal'emotit of piirehes.$'priW;'end.di?.ide'.~, the time accordingly as to ita use ?n county roads and street? of the.clty.?n 3Yh4 Commlssloners~~Colirt.'iaa oourti$~llm%ted power end.jtWi4diCtiQn, end has 'ne.power'ior duties exctipt~thy which are cltiarlyset fotithend.dHlned 3.ithe~Goiis$ituti?n and atatuteti. The.atetut&a have cle.Wly~d6flne~ the poweTa, preacx$bed--theduties, and'lmpoakdllebl~~ties of the'Com- timloners' Court, the mediun'through~whioh the different. counties ait, end~from thesei statute& mus6com6 all..of-the' authority veated.ln-the iiomty. Teir..&i% vol. 'Ll,.p. 563; Edwards County v. Jennings;,33 S..'S.585. we quote from Tsxas.~~urisprudencevdl. 'IX.>p.'632 as follows:

Honorable Leo Presnell, Page 2 O-1000 *

"The authority.of the commlssloners~ court-es the governing body of a county to make.contrecta in Its behalf Is etrict- ly limited to that conferred &the+ ex- pressly or by fair or neceasery implice- tion by the constitution and laws of the &ate. If the 'commissioners'court acts without authority in making e coritrect, the county Is not bound by Its ectiae. However, although an attempted contract Is beyond the power end authority coifided In the county commlssiohere, It may be en- forceable, apparently, If it 1s not IlIe- gel es well es ultra vlrea. The wisdom of a contract Is not e matter lpt6 which a judicial tribunal wlll'lnqulre; and the court will not substitute Its judgment for that of the commissioners* court so long es the letter cbntrects under'the euthor- lty of law. Again, the general powars glvento the commlssloners,~,.qourtare of little prectlcel,velue without the fur- ther authority to use edquate: means to ln- sure the.proper, intelligent and effective exercise thereof. ."The commlssioners~ court must have authority of-law for its contract, and, If the authority has been given, a reasonable constructJon of It will be given to effect its purp&e." Also, see the ceses of: Roper v. Hell, 280 S. W; 289; Baldw1n.v. Traviis'Cdunty; 08 S. W. 480; 'TarrantCounty VS. Rogkrs, 125 S; W. 592; .commissioners'Court v. wellice, 15 S. W. (2d) 535. *Municipal corporations are the creatures of the State, oontrivsd for Ita benefit; end they are invested with such authority and privileges, and have~oiilysuch,popers, as:the State has seen flt to confer upon them. They exercise only delegated authority; all acts done'by them must find authority In the lay of their creation. Common law prerogatives of

Honorable Leo Presnell; page 3 O-1000

the State are g&orally held not to b4 avaIl& ablelto them. 9 9 9* Tex. Jirp.vol. 30 p. 971 d%ent vi Randolph, 130,s~ IV;~I~I;-ToWII of ~rlfflnggperk;v.~ City of Port Authur, 38 s. W. (26) 593. “The extent of the authority of'ac&&- pal cctrporatlonais & question of construction. They powers granted to them ar4 usually strict- ly construed; any fair; resoneble or subafan- tlel'doubt concerning the existence of power is to'be reao&ved against ths'oorporetion(land the dlaputed power Is to be denied. I)0 9 Tex. JIW. vol. 30,'p. 110; City of Brenheq.va.,&lle & Seelhorat, 153 S.W. 345; City-of Clebu%.it Gulf, .C & g:F. B. ‘Co., 1 S. ,W. 342; Woat vt ‘City..of Waco, 294 S. W, 832.

Article $56,. RI C. S.- reads es.follows: ."Seldcourt may erect bridges wfthfa the corporate limits of any city or tonqto thi, same extentsand under the.kamk doiidltlonano? prescrlbed'by law for the construction of bridges outslde~the limits of any city or town. Said court and the,governing body of any city or town may cooperate in the erection of a bridge within the corporate l+ta of.a oity or.'town,sxidjointly erect suoh bridge upon terms end conditions mutually agreed upon; end either or boththe city and county may issue its bonds to pay its proportionate part of the debt by complying with the r4quirbmeFtS of the law regulating the ikstienceof bonds by counties and cities and toama.' &-title 4492, R. C. S., reeds es followa: -"A, commissioners court may co-operate with and join the proper authorities of any c!.tyha?- ing a populatidu of ten thousand persona 05 more j.nthe establishment, building, equptment and main- tenance of a hospital in said city, end to aPPro- pEte such funds as may be determined by said after joint conference with the authorities of &h cit,yor town, end the management of such

Honorable Leo Presnell, page 4 O-1000

hospital ahell.be under the joint control of such,court exidcity authorities." The above-quoted statutes apeciflcelly euthorlae contracts between couutiea end cities for specific pur- poses therein stated; howover, after a deligent search of the stetutea we do not f%nd any atetute~euthoriaing a city end oounty.to enter into a partnership In the purcheae of a motor grader for road end street repair work. And, In the ebsence'of e statute authorialng e oity and county to enter into a contpect end partnerhip In the purchase of a motor greder; the city end county would have no authority to do,so:. InviewRof the foregoing authorities, you em r4apectfully edvlsed that it is the opinion of‘thla'd4- pertmeat that the Commiaslonerat Court of Upahiu‘County cannot legally enter lnto'e pertncrahipIgreemant with the City of Cilmer to purchase a motor grader for road end street repair work. Truat%ng thetthe foregoing answers your inquiry, we remeln- Youis very truly ,. AT&NEYGRRERAL OFTEXAS

BY Ardell vi11reais AsslstBnt AW-MR/pfau APPROVED JUJ!J26 1939 '.BWD.C. W' ATTORNEY GENEF@L OF TJXAS