Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-2822 Page: 3 of 7
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 U. P. Sexton, Pave 3
"The constitutional power of the Legisla-
ture extends to the enactment of local ot ion
laws prohibiting the running at large of stock.
The Legislature has from time to time pacsed
such laws and has authorized elections to be
held in counties and sub-divisions thereof. The
first law passed authorized elections to pass
on propositions prohibiting small livestock,
hogs, sheep and goats from running at large.
Later, in 1899, the LegIslature provided for
elections as to the running at large of horses,
mules, Jacks, jennets anl cattle. Texas Jurls-
prudence, Vol. 39, page 354; Ex ?arte Coden,
16 S. N. 539; Roberton vs. State, 63 S. W. 884;
Bishop vs. State, 167 S. 4. 363.*
The stock law under which the county-wide election
was held in Orange County dealing with the regulation of stock
running at large including specifically hogs, sheep or goats,
according to your letter, appears to be Article 6930, of the
Revised Civil Statutes, 1925. This Article was first enacted
in 1876 and amended in 1909. It was brought forward as Arti-
cle 7209 in the 1911 Revised Civil Statutes.
From your request petitioners who now are seeking
to hold an election in a subdivision of Orange County, appear
to be attempting to act, in part, under the provisions of
Chapter 6 of Title 121, of the Revised Civil Statutes, being
Article 6954 to 6971, inclusive. Said articles provide for
local option elections to "determine whether horses, mules,
Jacks, Jennets and cattle shall run at large* in the partic-
ular named counties or their subdivisions, describe the pro-
cedure for such elections and the effect of the adoption of
such laws.
The 1911 PRevieed Civil Statutes, carried Article
6954 as Article 7235. Its substance is practically the same
in both revisions with the exception of the number of named
counties. Orange County is not included among the named
counties of said Article 7235.
The first thing to be determined in this opinion
is whether Orange County now comes within the provisions of
Article 6954 and the other succeeding articles in Chapter 6
of Title 121 of the Eevised Civil Statutes, 1925.
Tracingtack all of ths amendments-of Article 6954,
that we have been able to find, it appears that the name of
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-2822, text, 1940; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth260044/m1/3/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.