Texas Attorney General Opinion: C-760 Page: 3 of 6
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.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable R. L. Lattimore, page 4 (C-760)
state."
The court in Townsend v. The Housing Authority of
City of Dallas, 277 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.Civ.App., 1954, error
ref. n.r.e.)- upheld the Housing Authority's right to sell
land previously purchased under general warranty deed without
restriction, when subsequently the Housing Authority deter-
mined that the land, so acquired was excess land and no
longer required for the housing project for which it was
originally purchased. A similiar result was reached in
Vilbig v. Housing Authority of Dallas, 287 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.
Civ.App . o956 error ref. n.r.e.). In both of the above
cases, it was the Housing Authority, not the City of Dallas,
which disposed of the excess land.
In Miers v. Housing Authority of Dallas, 266 S.W.2d
487 (Tex.Civ.App., 1954); certified questions on other points,
266 S.W.2d 842, 153 Tex. 236 (1954), it was held:
". . . Appellee is a body corporate and
politic. Housing Authority of City of Dallas
v. Higginbotham 135 Tex. 158, 143 S.W.2d,79
Sy1. 15, page 86, 130 A.L.R. 1053. It is a
division of the City of Dallas and exists only
with the consent of the City of Dallas. Con-
sequently it did not have to deposit twice
the amount of the award, or make bond."
Likewise, in Aetna Casualty and Surety company v.
Glidden Co., 283 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Civ.App., 1955) (reversed
on other grounds), 291 S.W.2d 315, (Tex.Sup. 195), it was
held that the Housing Authority of the City of Borger was
a division of the city. The court considered the Housing
Authority an agent of the City of Borger. Consequently, the
Housing Authority came within the terms of Article 5160,
Vernon's Civil Statutes, since the "words 'any municipality'
as used in said statute included Housing Authorities created
under Article 1269k."
A prior opinion of this office, No. 0-6339 (1945),
held that vehicles operated by Housing Authorities of Texas
Cities were not eligible to receive exempt license plates
under Article 6675a-3, Vernon's Civil Statutes. The above
statute exempted vehicles used exclusively by the U.S. Govern-
ment, the State of Texas, counties, cities, or school dis-
tricts. In light of the holding that a housing authority is
a division of a city or county as the case may be, we hereby
overrule Opinion No. 0-6339.
It is well established in Texas that a special
-3660-
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: C-760, text, September 9, 1966; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth269183/m1/3/?q=%22United+States+-+Texas+-+Travis+County+-+Austin%22: accessed June 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.