Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bon. K. P. Gexton
County Attorney
Cranga County
Orange, Text a
hex SlXl ( \
Opflllon BIO. '
Ret Md the oommb
n43dherore the 8m
Pour lettar
the oplnlon of
has been rwel
Roll. w. P. Sexton, Page 8
S7a.60 par rsonth for the neason that author-
ity to pay the additional mm out OS fees of
orfhe was not obtained before the mm was
paid.”
Aftor oarrfully Oomilderlng the matter sub-
mltted by you, we are of the oplnlon that the Aeoislon
in the ease or PXmSCN Justloe or the Pease, et al vs.
OAZvE3~X COUNTY,151 k@ %nA 87, ooneludas the queetlon.
‘i.e quote as follour frcm the eourt’a oplniont
*From the lsrws presented la the brlcbr,
however, It appears that the oontroversy aa it
relstse to the aounty’e cult oonoorns the fol-
lowlnq itamxt (1) The ruta of $18.00 par mnth
Aurlnq the two-year period paid by Pierson to
.hls Deputy in exeeee of $60.00 per month ealarp
rixsd br the ecamInnloner%~ oourt)....
“The appointment of the As utp was undax
R. c. a., Art. S902, whioh prov f dae that1 ‘When-
wmr an9 Orriobr..r. shall require the xenior8
of Aeputlea os assletante in the psrfolaance of
hls duties, he may apply to the oountp aomids-
(lionera’ aourt of hia oounty iOr authority to
appoint euoh Aeputles or aaslrtant6, setting out
by sworn applloetlon the number needed, the posi-
tion eoucht to be filed, and the amount to be paid,
. . . . and said court may zaks its order author-
izing the appointment of suoh As)utlsr end fir
the canpenaatlon to be paid..rr*
“%ls statute was ca*-plied with at the be-
ginning OS 1935 and the deputy authorir:ed and
hoer salary fixed at 860 per month.
amrove a salary raise to operate
1y vmuld. we hold. be a elear violation of our
atate aonatitutlon, Art 3, para. 83 Veraon'
An St Eu I oas lk B&s1 co v. w.ite re1 Tex
13~: 47-P. ‘;.?A tI6!$1 Turner ;. Sarnee 'Tar Clr'
ArP.r 19 S. W. SA 325, affirmed on c&h&- &.nAs~
%I. Cola. App., 87 S. 1. 8A !532. The rulr laid
down in Canmvn County t. Fox, Tex. Corn. APR., Al
S. Y. Ed 483, la not applioeble here. There the
tax oollaator without preview authority, am-
ploped and pa i A ralarfee to deputies, the items
being roportod In hla aooount, whioh wee audited
. -
Eon. it. Pi Sexton, Page S
and appmved by the oammiesicnsra’ o’urt.
It was held that it was net essential to
obtain approval in advanoe of enployment a?
de~tiss~ that the oamnisnlnnersl oourt had
Dower to ratify what it had the orialnal
berer to autho>lza. Here the appll&atloa
had been made end the salary fired by thb
~alonerx~ court In advanoa or the sex+-
value
Kor is-it material that the
0r the ser~iosa DeIfOnartdcannof be
inquired Into.
justlae i aotuelly peid the full?$75,00 to the
.Aaputy eaeh month as the 8ervlose wera reader-
eA.N tundereaoring aura)
Artiole 3, 3eotlon 53, OS the Constltutlon of
Taxaa, reads:
“The LeglsIatura shall have no powr to
grsnt, or to authorize anp aounty or munlel-
pal authority to &rent, any extra ooinpsnsa-
tlon; ras or allaanee to a publia offloer,
agent, servant or eontraotor, after servlos
h&s been rendered, or a oontreeot has been
entered into, and performed in whole or ln
pert; nor pay, nor authorize the papent of,
any eloisl aroatsd against any oounty or munl-
olpalltp of the state, under any sgresmsnt
or oontraot, made without authority ot law.”
You are, therefore, regpeotfully aAvlseA that
it is the opinion or this de$artamnt that the question
pmpounded by you should be answered in ths negative.
Very truly yours