Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-472 Page: 3 of 6
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Hollis D. Garmon, page 3 (M-472)
convening of the next regular term." (Emphasis
The above language, while not only stating the terms of
the 62nd District Court in Hunt, Delta, and Hopkins Counties, also
clearly brings the terms of the 8th District Court therein within
its purview. It is thus apparent that Article 199, Subdivision
8, enacted in 1939, and Article 199, Subdivision 62, enacted in
1955, are inconsistent and contradictory as to the term of the
8th District Court in Hunt, Delta, and Hopkins Counties and,
consequently, as to when the 8th District Court may impanel
grand juries in those counties.
House Bill Number 857 (Acts 54th Leg. R.S. 1955, ch.
473, p. 1198), which is Article 199, Subdivision 62, states in
its caption that it is:
"An Act to amend Subdivision 62 of Article
199 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925,
as amended, so as to provide that Hopkins County
shall be within the 62nd Judicial District; chang-
ing the terms of the District Courts of Hunt, Lamar,
Delta, Franklin, and Hopkins Counties; providing for
the jurisdiction of such Courts and the functions of
the judges thereof; providing procedure for trans-
fer of cases and proceedings; providing procedure
for transferred cases and proceedings; providing
for the exchange of benches and for judges to sit
for each other; providing for district clerks and
sheriffs to serve the Courts; validating and con-
tinuing all process issued or served before this
Act takes effect; making such process returnable
to the next term of the Court; validating the
summoning of grand and petit juries under this
Act; repealing all laws in conflict; and declaring
an emergency." (Emphasis added.)
Both from the language of the caption and the language
of the Act itself, it appears the Legislature intended to set the
terms of both the 8th and the 62nd District Courts in Hunt, Delta,
and Hopkins Counties in addition to repealing all legislation in-
consistent therewith, though the inconsistent provisions of
Article 199, Subdivision 8, are not expressly repealed.
The applicable rule of construction has been stated as
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: M-472, text, 1969; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth269696/m1/3/: accessed February 16, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.