Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1961 )


Menu:
  •        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