Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

January 3, 19% Mr.~Ch@rl8S R.~I$a.r~ln``~. County Auditor, Harrison County Marshall, Texas Dear Mr. Martin: opinion BO. o-06 Re: Bond Premium Expense of County Officer Your letter of Deoember :,3c,,.,$938, ,a@ressed:~to Attorney Qeneral Wm. M&raw, has been referned to this Dijpa5tineik for attention. Your letter reads, in part, as follows: "WI11 ybu please advise me'whether or not..thepremium on the suretybond made m the oounty officer Is-an expense btine by the oountg, or should same be paid by the auditor?" You are respeotkly advLsed that it 1s the opinion of this Department that the premium on the offlolal bond of the oounty office of Harrison County, Texas, should be pald by the auditor personallyas a personal expense and should not be paid by Harrison County. The County Auditor Is not a fee officer atiddoes not oome within the provisions of the Officers' Salary Law, whereby such oharaoter of expense could be legally charged up as an expense of office. There is no provlslon in the Statutes providing for the payment of the County Auditor's bond premium on his offlclal bond. On July 17, 1935, Hohorable Leon 0. Moses, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, w??otean opinion Charles L. Martin - January 3, 1939 - Page 2 (0-06) covering a question very similar to the above question, and I enclose herewith a oopy of Mr. Moses' opinion. Trusting that the above answers your question, IsIll Yours respectfully, ATTCRNEY QXNERAL OF TEXAS BY Asslstant WJFxBT:mjs ENCLOSURE APPROVEP: /s/ Oerald C. Mann " ATTC%@EYGEIilQULOF``