-
TEEA~TORNEY GENERAL OF I’EXAS January 9, 1961 Honorable George Gray Opinion No. ww-$0 County Attorney County of Ector Re: The effect of the appoint- Room 201 ment of a purchasing agent Ector (County Courthouse for a county over 73,000 Odessa, Texas population as to (a) The continued necessity of hav- ing the County Judge approve purchases (b) Purchases by the sheriff of food and medi- cine for county prisoners, (c) Purchases of food, cloth- ing and supplies by the 'oun- Dear Pk. Gray: ty Kelfare authorities. You have requested an opinion on the following questions which arise as a result of the recent appoint- ment of a ,County Purchasing Agent for Ector County pursuant to the permissive language of Article 1580, Vernon's CIvi.1 Statutes as amended by Acts, 56th Legislature, Regular Session, 1959, Chapter 418, Page 913. What is the effect of such appointment: 1. As to the continued necessity of having the County Judge approve purchases; 2. As to the purchasing duties of the County Sheriff pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1040, 1045, and 1047, Code of Crimi- nal Procedure; and, 3. As to the purchases of food, cloth- ing and medical supplies heretofore made by the County ?Jelfare Department? 1. The language of Section 1 (b), Article 1580, states in part, as you pointed out, '. . . All purchases made by such Agent shall be paid for by warrants drawn by the County Auditor on the County Treasurer of such county as in the manner now provided by law." JIonorable George Gray, Page 2 (Ww--980) Article 1661, Vernon's Civil S;:.atutes,sets forth the requisites of approval for claims, bills and axounts against the county which are submitted to the Jaunty Auditor. It states: "lie shall not audit or approve any such claim unless it has been contracted as provided by law, nor any account for the purchase of supplies or materials for the use of said county or any of its officers, unless, in addition to other requirements of law, there is attached thereto a requisi- tion signed by the officer ordering same and approved by the county judge." (I%nphasis ours) Neither the ianguage of Article 1580 above quoted, nor any other provision of Article 1580 indicates that the Legislature intended, by the passage of the 1959 Amendment, to eliminate the requirement, set forth in Article 1661, that claims, bills and accounts be approved by the 'County Judge. As there is no ascertainable conflict between the provisions, it is our opinion that the County Judge must continue to approve all claims, bills and ac'zounts present- ed to the County Auditor for payment by warrant drawn on the County Treasurer. Indeed, from a fair reading of the statutes in point, it is apparent that the Legislature in- tended that the two statutes work in conjunction with one another. It is, therefore, the opinion of this office that the County Judge must continue to approve claims, bills and accounts including those arising from purchases made by the County Purchasing Agent. Articles 1580, 1661, :1ernon's Civil Statutes. 2. The answer to your second question may be found in Opinion No. V-1188 rendered June 13, 1951, by this office. This opinion, in turn, was grounded on a 1933 opinion to Honorable J. L. Crosthwait, County Auditor of Dallas County. The substance of these two opinions reflects the well-established rule that where a general statute is en- acted which is in apparent conflict with a specific statute speaking on the same subject matter, the specific statute will control and will not be overruled by implication. Perez v. Perez, 59 Tex.~ 122; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. State,
95 S.W.2d 680; Sam Bassett Lumber Co. v. City of Houston, 198 s.w. 2d 879. . . Honorable George Gray, Page 3 (w-980) We quote from the 1933 Opinion: 'It has been the longstanding policy of the Legislature of this State to commit the care and mainte- nance of prisoners to the sheriff. I do not believe that it was the in- tention of the Legislature to alter this policy by the provisions of Chapter 236, Acts of the Forty-third Legislature. If such an intention did exist it would have been a re- latively easy thing to have made express provision therefor, both in the caption of the bill and in its text." As the language of Chapter 236, Acts of the Forty-third Legislature, above mentioned, closely parallels the provisions of Article 1580, we find no in- consistency in the determination that it is not the duty of the Purchasing Agent of Ector County to perform the purchasing duties hitherto expressly assigned to the sheriff of said county pursuant to the provisions of Arti- cles 1040, 1046, and 1047, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended. 3. As regards purchases made by the County Welfare Department you are advised that there is no statu- tory authority for said purchases being made by the Welfare Department itself. Accordingly, there is no conflict between statutes which would lead to the conclusion that said purchases should be made by anyone other than the County Purchasing Agent. Purchases by the County Welfare Department would, therefore, not fall within the rule set forth above in paragraph 2. Absent a statute specifically designating the purchasing duties of the Welfare Department, it would appear that the provisions of Article 1580, Ver- non's Civil Statutes, will control and said purchases should be made by the County Purchasing Agent. Article 1580, Vernon's Civil Statutes. SUMMARY Where a County Purchasing Agent is appointed pursuant to the provisions of Article 1580, Vernon's Civil Honorable George Gray, Page 4 (ml-980) Statutes, such appointment does not eliminate the requirement of Article 1661, Vernon's Civil Statutes, that the County Judge must approve the payment of all claims, bills and accounts. It is not the duty of the County Pur- chasing Agent of Ector County to make purchases which are specifically de- signated to be the duty of the sheriff under Articles 1040, 1046, and 1047, Code of Criminal Procedure. Attorney General's Opinion V-1188. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 1580, Vernon's Civil Statutes, it is the duty of the County Purchasing Agent to make purchases for the County Welfare Department. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas .4f$&&yG&J‘a BY Robert L. Armstrong :\sslstant RLA:hmc/mm APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE >J. V. Geppert, Chairman Leon F. Pesek William E. Allen ii. Ray Scruggs Ben M. Harrison REVIE!IED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Morgan Nesbitt
Document Info
Docket Number: WW-980
Judges: Will Wilson
Filed Date: 7/2/1961
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/18/2017