Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-484 Page: 3 of 5
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:
Heon. Roy C. Snodgrass, page 3 (V-484)
may be expended in the improvement of city streets with
the consent of said city, provided such streets are an
integral part of the county road system, citing City of
Breckenridge v. Stephens County, 40 S. W. (2d) 43, and
Hughes v. County Commissioners Court of Harris County,
35 8. W. (2d) 818. The question now presented is wheth-
er the Conaissioners Court of Potter County has the
authority to improve streets in the City of Amarillo
which do not form an integral part of the county road
system of said county. It is assumed from your factual
situation, as well as the map attached thereto, that
the streets in question are not city streets forming a
part of the county road system of Potter County.
In the case of Williams v. Carroll, 182 8 . V.
29, the court held that a street generally means a pass-
ageway within the bounds of a municipal corporation,
while a road means a county highway forming a ommunica-
tion between the city limits of one city or town and
the city limits of another city or town; and while a
street is a highway it is not necessarily true .that a
highway is a street.
As to theques'tion of exclusive jurisdiction
over streets, the court in Gabbert v. City of Brownvood,
176 8. W. (2d) 344, stated as follows:
"In 1891 this same question was gain
presented ia Ngrwood vs. Gonsales County,
79 Tex. 218, 14 8. W. 1057, 1058, wheren
the Supreme Court declared that the, acb-
missioners' court was without Jurisdiction
to open up a road through land within the
corporate limits of the city of Goliad.
That the word. Jurisdiction was used ad-
vised17 is shown by the holdings that the
proceedings were without effect and in-
oapable of ratification, even after the
exclusion of the particular section of-
the road from the city limits, thereby
placing it within.the jurisdiction of the
'commissioner's court. This resulted, af-
course, from the familiar principle that
whatever is, void as distinLguished from
merely voidable, cannot be validated by
ratification. The decision in Norwood v.
Gonzales County, supra, has so far as we
know, never been overruled and has been
followed in the following ases: Benat
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: V-484, text, January 24, 1948; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth265303/m1/3/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.