Texas Attorney General Opinion: C-288 Page: 2 of 3
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.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Clyde E. Smith, Jr., page 2 (C-288)
Under the special law passed for Tyler County, a
hospital district is being set up and your question is:
"Must the Commissioners Court follow the overlapping term
provision of the general law in making its first appointments?"
The rule for construing general and special laws
together is stated in 53 Tex.Jur.2d 232, Statutes, 161, as
follows:
"In case of conflict between a general
provision and a special provision dealing
with the same subject, the former is control-
led or limited by the latter, since a specific
statute more clearly evidences the intention of
the legislature than a general one; and this is
so whether the provisions in question are con-
tained in the same act or in different enact-
ments. . . .
In the case of Hidalgo County Water Control and
Improvement District No. v6. Rdal, o ount', 134So.W.2d-464
(Tex.Ctv.App. 1939, error teri, it is said at page 467:
". . when specific provisions of the
general law, if given effect, would rullify or
modify specific provisions of the special act
concerning particularized rights and duties of
the districts created by it, the latter pro-
visions must prevail over those of the general
law, .
In the case of Road District No . 1 Jefferson County,
v. Sellers, 142 Tex. 528, 180 S'.W.2d 13t (1944), one of the
questions before the court was which act governed where a special
law for Jefferson County provided that bonds therein referred to
should be payable at such time as might be deemed most expedient
by the Commissioners Court; whereas the general law provided
that generally bonds of the same category should be redeemable
at the pleasure of the county, but not until five years after
the issuance of the bonds. In holding that the special law
governed, the Court said at page 141, in a unanimous decision:
"An examination of the two statutes will
disclose that the Legislature in the enactment
of the /Tpecial7 statute under which these bonds
were isEued anF conferred on the Commissioners'
Court full and unlimited power to make the bonds
payable at such time or times as may be deemed
expedient. .whereas no such unlimited authority-1379-
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.
Matching Search Results
View one place within this text that match your search.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-288, text, July 31, 1964; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth268707/m1/2/?q=%221964~%22: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.