No. V-0045 (1947).

• Court: Texas

Texas Attorney General Opinions 1947. No. V-0045 (1947). 1Feb. 25, 1947Honorable Bruce L. ParkerCounty AttorneyGray CountyPampa, TexasOpinion No. V-45Re: Authority of the Commissioners' Court of Gray County to issue and sell sufficient bonds out of unissued and unsold bonds to purchase right-of-way for State Highway No. 66 in said County.Dear Sir:Your request for an opinion on the above subject presents the following question:

"Is the Commissioners' Court of this County now authorized to issue and sell sufficient bonds out of the foregoing $452,000 unissued and unsold bonds and use the proceeds there of in purchasing the right-of-way for State Highway No. 66 in this County as the same has been relocated and resurveyed by the State Highway Department?"

We have examined the certified copy of the petition presented to the Commissioners' Court of your County in 1931, which you were kind enough to furnish us, together with the Transcript of the Proceedings on file in the Comptroller's Office, wherein the bond issue in question was authorized. Your question relates only to the unissued and unsold bonds of the $800,000 bond issue authorized by the second provision of said Petition. The stated purpose for said issue is as follows:

"Second: Bonds to be issued in the aggregate sum of Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000.00) for the construction, maintenance and operation of macadamized, graveled or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid thereof, designated as State Highways, within such County, and which bonds may run for a term not to exceed twenty years from their date and may mature serially or otherwise at the discretion of the Commissioners' Court and bear interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum or less."

2The Comptroller's Transcript reveals no pre-election order by the Commissioners' Court limiting or changing this purpose in any degree. From the facts before us, there are none which establish a definite identification of any particular road or highway to be paved or improved; no funds from the bond issue have been earmarked for any specific project. Consequently, the authorized purpose is general in nature. Where this circumstance exists, the applicable law is ably stated in the case of Fletcher vs. Ely (Court of Civil Appeals), 53 S. W. (2d) 817:

"(2,3) (2) That, in the absence of a definite identification of the

...