Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1966 )


Menu:
  • Hon. Robert S. Calvert                      Opinion No. C-742
    Comptroller of Public Accounts
    Austin, Texas                                  Re:   Authority of the Comn-
    troller to effect, by a
    journal entry, a trans-
    fer of monies from the
    General Revenue Fund to
    the Departmental Suspense
    as a method of refunding
    money erroneously deposited
    in the Treasury to the Gen-
    Dear Hon. Calvert:                                   era1 Revenue Fund.
    Your request for an opinion reads as follows:
    'I am in receipt of a demand from the Post
    Office Department for a refund of $Z5.OO to cover
    duplicate money order payments. The money current-
    ly is deposited to General Revenue.
    "My concern is the legal means that are avail-
    able to me for refunding such duplicate payments
    when using a statement of facts. Such statement
    includes:
    "Reference:
    ORIGINAL MONEY ORDERS
    Order Number
    21 b       B
    :21?6$;ai
    DUPLICATE MONEY ORDERS
    2217605787           lo.00     4-23-64                        z-g:-2;
    2217605788         ! 15.00     4-23-64                          -    -
    "The two duplicate Postal Money Orders, dated
    4-23-64, were deposited 5-26-66  to General Revenue
    Fund 1, Revenue Code 570,  in the amount of $25.00,
    Deposit Voucher Number l5lZl.
    -3579-
    ,
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2, (C-742)
    "The Comptroller's office held the duplicates
    pending receipt of information identifying the pur-
    pose of the payment. The deposit was eventually made
    as a 'conscience money' payment--unidentified.
    "On June 20, 1966, the Post Office Department
    wrote the State Treasurer citing the double payment
    and requesting refund of the $25.00. The Treasurer
    referred the matter to the Comptroller.
    llThequestion now arises, can the Comptroller
    effect by journal entry a transfer of $25.00 from
    'General Revenue Fund' to Departmental Suspense'
    to remedy a coding error? If such remedy is denied
    then by what means can restitution be made to the
    Post Office Department?"
    Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas
    provides: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
    pursuance of specific appropriations made by law; . . . .'
    Money held in suspense does not go into the State Treas-
    Rogers v. Daniel Royal Oil Co., 
    130 Tex. 386
    , 
    110 S.W.2d 8uGf
    '@4 (1937). Therefore, a transfer from the General Fund
    (which constitutes money in the State Treasury) to the Suspense
    Account would constitute a withdrawal of money from the Treas-
    ury . Since the money has 'beendeposited in the General Revenue
    Fund, such money has passed beyond the control of the State
    Treasurer and it is now impossible to remove such deposit with-
    out an appropriation. Manion v. Lockhart, 
    131 Tex. 175
    , 114
    S.W.Zd 216 (1938). In the Manion case, a question similar to
    the one involved in your request was before the court, and in
    construing the provisions of Section 6 of Article VIII of the
    Constitution of Texas, the court stated at page 219:
    "It is shown that respondent, acting on the
    opinion rendered by the Attorney General, deposited
    this money in the general revenue fund of the state.
    Respondent has in no manner profited by such aCt&Qm
    on his part. He in good faith deposited such money
    in the general revenue fund, which now requires that
    it be appropriated by the Legislature in accordance
    with the provisions of section b of article 8 of the
    3Constitution.                           ave in his
    possession such funds, and, therefore, he is unable,
    without an act of the Legislature, to pay same to
    those entitled thereto. Having complied with the
    advice of the Attorney General, in making such trans-
    fer of funds, it would be both unjust and unfair to
    -3580-
    Hone Robert S. Calvert;page    3,   .(c-742)   ',
    undertake by writ of mandamus to compel the treas-
    urer to vav this amount of monev out of his ner-
    sonal funds. It was contrary to law for the-funds
    to be deposited in the'general revenue fund, as was
    done, but they have passed beyond the:control of the
    treasurer, and it is now impossible for the treas-
    purer to a
    posited with him." (Emphasis added)
    It is our opinion that the principle of law announced
    in Manion v. 
    Lockhart, supra
    , is applicable to the facts out-
    lined in your reauest. Therefore, you are advised that the
    Comptroller may not transfer, by journal entry, money deposited
    in the General Fund to the Suspense Fund for the reason that the
    same amounts to a withdrawal of money from the Treasury without
    an appropriation and such action is prohibited by the provisions
    of Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas.
    In answer to your second question, restitution to the
    Post Office Department can only be made by the Legislature en-
    acting an appropriation for the purpose of refunding such money
    to the ,PostOffice Department.
    SUMMARY
    In view of the provisions of Section 6 of
    Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas, monies
    erroneously deposited in the State Treasury cannot
    be withdrawn except in pursuance of specific appro-
    priations made by law.
    Yours very truly,
    WAGGONER CARR
    Attorney General of Texas
    torney General
    JR:mh
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    w . 0. Shultz, Chairman
    James McCoy
    Malcolm Quick             .
    -3581-
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 4, (C-742)
    Ralph Rash
    Gordon Cass
    APPROVED FOR THZATTORNEY GENERAL
    By: T. B. Wright
    -3582-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-742

Judges: Waggoner Carr

Filed Date: 7/2/1966

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017