Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

.OFFICE OF THE &n,ORNN GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN conorable C. Sirmons ;ountyAuditor ::caderson County bth~kms, Texas -Opinionls!o. O-7474 A Zcihave iec Cord.ssionersf ..Court0 nttolnc?y.toact as lo P-ax23 to,?ay hi* a mo The dommSeiioners~Court may employ bunsel and.coqxmsate hti.from the'gener&,m when the matters.involvedsre thoee con- cerniq the coun%y as .awhole, .where.the.regu&arly constituted public officials could,not or.would not act, or where public interest ww SO LTeat as to warrant such extra-lo@. services. City Hational 3ank V* Presidio County, 26 S.Fi.775; Galveston County V. Gre~shan,220.S,.'-J. f jion.C. SLmons 7 Pas& 2' .., : 560 ax-or rofusedgOpinionsof the &ttorneyGeneralof Texas Ho. O- 4354 and x0. o-1372. Article334s VernoxitsAnnotatedCivQ 8t~atute0, wae in-~ tendedto isqose a duty upon the County and Eistriotattormys 50 &ve advicet.0the Comm~s~ton0rs~ Court when roquwt is mad8 there for but this ir!no% +Irestrfctioniqma th8,Comissfoners~Court Sn khe enplomr.% of sttor+ys to r.dvise Rnd render serricesto the Court in importantmmere,comln~ before it for itrrconsider- ation. Gibscmv. Davis; 236 S.%'i', 202. .In tliacase of Grooms v. ktacosaCounty,, 32.S.W. WO, the ~om5osionez3*~ Coxirtmu&t to .arqploy a12at&me as le&l advisor Sor on0 year.-The Cow of C~5vil.A~$ea&s held tL t the Ctmiosioqsrst Court was not authorlsedto Etgfrosua& a co@irs.ct+ and could n5t pay an attorneyfor ?ervicea-.ne$%4je?? required aor perform&l. It ia &Ur &n~&&'opinioa~t&~'the Taw,doeskot 5ntend intend that the~Co~nu5szg5oners~ Cout%~ha&l employ~c~nsel.aa-asalarybas5s ' t~adv5sc end represent mpsent tt. 5t.in in wbaWmrmtt+?~rs u5ght arise. %