Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-164 Page: 3 of 6
6 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 Charles A. Allen, page 3 (M-164)
County, Texas. No purchase shall be made for
the benefit of the road and bridge department
for which funds are not provided in the current
approved road and bridge department budget, ex-
cept in the case of emergency involving public
safety, health, and the protection of life and
property." (Emphasis added).
You state in your request that pursuant to Section 14
above quoted the Commissioners Court of Harrison County adopted
certain rules and regulations and that paragraph 3 of said rules
and regulations reads as follows:
"3. All purchases for the Road and Bridge
Department shall be made in strict compliance
with Sea. 14 of the Road and Bridge Law. The
Engineer shall be the sole and exclusive pT
chasng agent. Anyurch made w o s
authorization shall be void. In the event of
a purchase without the authority of the Engineer,
such person usurping the authority of the Engineer
shall be individually responsible to the supplier
or other person involved. The Engineer shall be
authorized to purchase materials and supplies,
which in his judgment are necessary for the opera-
tion of the Road and Bridge Department, but no one
purchase shall exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00),
unless previously authorized by a contract entered
into as required by Sec. 14 of the Road and Bridge
Law." (Emphasis added).
Construing the provisions of Sections 9 and 14 of House
Bill 1346 above quoted together, we note that the ultimate power
for the purchase of machinery, equipment, supplies and materials
necessary requisite and/or convenient to lay out, construct, repair
and maintain public roads in Harrison County rests in the Commissioneri
Court of Harrison County.
While the Commissioners Court cannot bind the county by
ratification of an illegal contract (Germo Mfg. Co. vs. Coleman
County, 184 S.W. 1063 (Tex.Civ.App. 191b, no writ); Limestone
Coun v vs. Knox, 234 S.W. 131 (Tex.Civ.App. 1921, no writ); .
Uchiltree County vs. Hedrick, 366 S.W.2d 866, (Tex.Civ.App. 1963,
error ref. n.r.e.)), it is well settled law in this State that
what the Commissioners Court could have authorized in the beginning,
the Commissioners Court may subsequently ratify; and where a county
receives benefits under a contract not made in conformity with the
Constitution or statute of the State, the county will be held liable-770-
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: M-164, text, November 28, 1967; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth269382/m1/3/: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.