Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-517 Page: 5 of 8
8 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Lynn Brown, page 5. (WW-517)
trict No. 1 v. Davidson, 102 Tex. 539, 543, 120 S.W. 849, 851,
(1909)
". . . In determining the sense in
which the language was used by the Legisla-
ture, we look to the context and to the pur-
pose of the Legislature in enacting the law."
In Longoria v. State, 126 Tex. Crim. 362, 363, 71 S.W.
2d 268, 269.(1934), the following language is found:
"We further observe that in accordance
with settled rules of interpretation of statutes,
even when the language used is susceptible of two
meanings, the courts are to give it that meaning
which will conform to the scope of the act and
carry out the purpose of the statute. . .
In passing Senate Bill 188, the Legislature, in our
opinion, did not intend to exempt either the Superintendent of
Buildings and Grounds nor the "head plumber", as described in
your opinion request, from the licensing requirements of the
Act. For either of the persons to be exempted under the pro-
visions of Section 3(c), they must show that they are regularly
employed as maintenance men and that the work being done is in-
cidental to and in connection with the business in which they
are employed and further they cannot be engaged in the occupa-
tion of plumber for the general public.
The word "maintain" ordinarily means to preserve some-
thing which is already in existence, and there must be something
in existence before it can be maintained. In this sense the
term does not include the concept of erecting or building some-
thing which is not already in existence. It has also been de-
fined as to hold or keep in any particular state or condition;
to support; to sustain; to uphold; to keep up; not to suffer
to fail or decline. Pacific Tank and Pipe Co. v. Pacific Box
cor ., 64 P. 2d 773; Anderson v. United States Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co., 104 P. 2d 906, 907, 44 N.M. 483; 1 29 A.L.R. 1084.
Alpo see Perkins v. Becker, 157 S.W.2d 550, 552; Verdin v. St.
Louis, 27 S.W. 447, 451.
In Madley v. Trustees of Conroe Independent School
District, 130 S.W.2d 929, 933 Tex.Civ.App. 1939), the Court
distinguished "building" from 'Maintenance" as follows:
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: WW-517, text, October 23, 1958; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth267129/m1/5/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.