Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-133 Page: 4 of 5
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. E. Do Camiade - Page 4 (V-133)
Counties being legal subdivisions of the State, county
roads are State property, and the title is held for
the benefit of the State. (21 Texo Jur. 625) There-
fore, it is the opinion of this Department that, so
long as Pyron Road is used for the purposes for which
dedicated, the title will remain in the State.
Your second question requires a construction
of the above quoted statute0 An examination of the orig-
inal Act of the Legislature (Acts 1939, 49th Lego, RS.,
S. Bo, 298) reveals that the caption of such Act relates
to "land titles and interests". The word interestss" in
sueh caption would seem to negative the fact that a fee
simple title was intended to be conveye in all cases.
It would appear from the reading of the original Act that
the Legislature intended that the Parks Board may receive
whatever interest a donor of land had at the time of such
transfer to the Board. If such be true, the Parks Board
would be authorized to do those things neeesaary to ac-
complish the purposes intended by the Legislature, If a
statute is susceptible of construction, it should be so
construed as to aomplish its purposes. (Loweastein,
et al, vs. Watts, et al, 137 S? Wo 2d 2)
The State Parks Board is not an independent
corporation or institution operated for financial gain,
but an agency of the State charged with the responsibil-
ity of acquiring and maintaining a system of public perks
for the benefit of the people generally, for the benevo-
lent purpose of promoting health, happiness and general
welfare of citizens (State v. Brannan, et ux. 131 S.1.
(2d) 347o) As such agency, it is believed that Article
6068, supra, should be liberally construed to accomplish
the purpose intended by the Legislature0 Moreover, the
express authority given to the Board to accept or refuse
title indicates an intention of the Legislature to com-
sit to the Board the discretion of accepting br rejecting
any tract of land or title whatsoever offered If, after
aeseptaxce, such trast of land is not suitable, the Board
is authorized to reconvey the sane to the donor.
Therefore, in answer to your second question,
it is tke opinion of this Department that the Parks Board
would be authorized to accept the undivided one-half in-
tno*st now vested in the County of Bexar, Texas, in and
to the Plaza of Mission San Jose0
Here’s what’s next.
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: V-133, text, April 6, 1947; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth264953/m1/4/: accessed February 16, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.