The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Cullen B. Vance,page 4 (V-1510)
"Under these undisputed facts evidencing dedication and after more than a century of unquestioned general public use following and accepting such dedication, it cannot Justly be said tbat Smith County can now convert the square to private use. Of course, the county may abandon the present square as a site for a courthouse and build a new courthouse wher- ever it chooses; but if it elects to do that, the entire square must remain impressed with the right of the public to use it for general public purposes; it cannot be diverted to private uses. Lamar County v. Clements, 49 Tex. 347, supra." In Att'y Gen. Op. V-147# (1952) it was held that land dedicated to the public for park purposes could not be diverted for any other use, stating that it must remain for the use of the public for park pur- poses and cannot therefore be sold or exchanged. In connection with the above your attention is directed to the fact that the City of Tyler case was based upon facts which were uncontroverted. We do not feel justified in assuming that there are no other facts which might be developed with regard to the intentions to dedicate. Therefore, the answer to your question is dependent upon all the facts which might later be de- veloped and the application of the law as stated in this opinion. SUMMARY Where there is a dedication and ac- ceptance of a courthouse site for public use, it cannot be diverted to private use. City of Tyler v. Smith County, 246 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. Sup. 1952). Yours very truly, APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL J. C. Davis, Jr. Attorney General County Affqirs Division E. Jacobson B Reviewing Assistant u len Charles D. Mathews Assistant First Assistant