Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-237 Page: 3 of 13
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Thoman R. Chandler, March 15, 1959, Page 3
collect the $100,000.00 he had guaranteed to do
by the expiration date of said contract, Decem-
ber 31, 1938, (and to be exact, only a e little
lees than $90,400.00 has been collected by De-
cember 31, 1938.). Would you consider this con-
tract breached?"
xe will first endeavor to answer your Question No. 1.
Article V, Seotion 18, of the Constitution of Texas,
after providing for the election of four oonmissioners in each
county, provides as follows
** * * The conty Ooaamieoners o obosen
} with the County aAge, as prsi ing off leer,
hall compose the ouna Oenissioners Court,
thich thall exercise such powers and j urisdi-
tion over all county bMatnes, as s isconferred
by t: this Cosittion eat the ]aw of the State,
or as %aat be reaterf resuIribet,"
There is no oonstitut onal provision or statute satng
hat nlebr of 'votes or that majority is necessary in order f~oth
ao issioner1 ' oart to aot. Article 284$ of the Be.ise Civil
States at texas provides as ollast
tr nemabnrs f the aid ourt, in
Ej .o eldas county fta.ge, nhna constitute a
qpaam for the trasnestien ot any business, ea-
esps that or l+iys a mcouQft ftar,
however this Artiole 4oe not help uas a answering this
Squestio beeaase here as a oma prese in this @ase i tfet
the entire w pronnel of the oeurt was present. As we view it, the
question we amut decide is as tblowes Is a njoritz vote of *h
coammisionera votig, some being presented ta t etiuj, all that
is necessary to authorize the noaaisters' court to ae=t or s it
necessary tbat a ajority of all those present vote tbr the action
before the court can aot?
There are no Texas appellate ourt eases directly on htis
question, and there is a great f alit aong the authorltiee from
ohr states.
In the ease of Lawrence Vs. Ingersoll, 88 tea. St, 18
5,W, 4882, L*.k. 88, Ooitet in 1889, the Supreme Court of tenn
nosses held that a majority o thone rese rs n a board of eta
fton mast vote attimtively f~be~r thei~ b ord st but n the
case at tah ifle GasCO. vs. City of Ras , 181 808 88
It. 7s, 8 LJ.A. 315, fas 44d in 189, the Stpres a
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-237, text, March 15, 1939; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth257423/m1/3/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.