Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )

AUSTIN SI.-~-EXAH
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGEXERAL
November 16, 1951
Hon. Austin F. Anderson
Criminal District kttorney
Dsxar County
San Antonio, Texas Opinion No. V-13+4
he: Authority of the County
Auditor to require af-
fidavits from the County
Commissioners concerning
their claims for travel-
ing expenses.
Dear Sir:
You have requested an opinion on the follow-
ing question:
“May the County Auditor require affi-
davits of the County Cornmissioners before
making a ments under the provisions of Sen-
ate Bid 3131 (52nd Legislature), if he deems
it neceeaary?gv
Senate Bill 131, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951,
ch. 456, p. 812, codified &J Article 235On,,V. C. S.,
provides in part as follows:
Y3ec. 3. In any county in this State
having a population in excess of one hundred
twenty-four thousand (l2l+,OOO), according to
the last preceding or any future Federal Cen-
mum, the Commis,rioners Court is hereby auth-
oriaed to allow each member of the Commission-
ere Court the sum of not exceeding One Hundred
($100.00) Dollars per month for traveling ex-
penses and depreciation on his automobile wfii&~+.~,
on offimbusiness witk!zin the comity. Each
member of such Commxssloners Court shall pay
all expenses in the opwra’cion of such automo-,
bile and keep same in repair free of any other
charge to t!ie county-.” (Emphasis added)
0, * -
,., @w. -11% F. Anderson, page 2 (V-1344)
_..
Pursuant tc .lcnate Bill 131, the Commissioners
Court of Bexar County has passed an,order alLowing each
mber of the Commissioners* Court $lO(?.UO per month for
traveling expenses and depreciation on his automobile
while traveling on official business witkill the county.
Lkctian la of Article 2350, V.C.S., provider:
‘VRO, la. The Coriraionars Court in each
wt is hereby authorized to pay the actual
trave Ismg ex#onses incurred while travemut-
eide of the count on official county business
nwar to exceed Tii ree Hundred Dollars
on on. year for each raid o?fieial.”
OdL. 1
It has been held that uader Section la, county
connisrioners were mtitled only to thr actual and nrces-
ury traveling ex ny1 nhile trrnll outside the
count on officir E”b$#og. htc’y. “0 on. Opa. V-200
(1947y and O-7438 (1946). The baais for such a con-
struction was the language *the actual travelinq expenser
incurred while travelig m&side of the county.i’ Senate
Ml1 131 contains no euch lanP;ua!;e. On the contrary,
it ie stated that the comaissioners~ court is authorized
to allow each nwber of the commissioners’ court a sum
not to exceed $100.00 per month ll.for trave!ling oxpensee
and depreciation on his autotrobile.ql No formula is
prescribed in Senate Hill 131 for determining the amount
of automobile depreciation oath month. Furthermore,
c& trwoling expense is not limitrd to traveling ex-
pense actually incurrod. It is therefore our opinion
that it was not the intention of the Legislature t&at
the members of the commiseioners’ court would be re-
quirrd tt show that traveling expenee allowed them had
bron actually ~incurred before payment could be made.
Some atatutre Jlowing travel expense tc offi-
aera on the basis of oxpare actually incurred or dis-
t-e 8etually traveled exprearly require WIWO~;;;te-
mrnte from the officer maka the claim.
example, Article8 6077-l J Wt9c V.C.S. Hotnver,
there is no rovirien in Sm&r Bi!.l 131 requirin? the
members of tRl cti(laionera’ court to furnish a &worn
statement rrletivr to travel expamoa incurred by thsa.
- ..
Hon. Austin F. Anderson, pa&e 3 (V-1344)
You have referred ua to Article 1660, V.C.S.,
which reads:
*All claim!, bills and accounts againrt the
county must be filed in ample time for the auditor
to examine and rpprove same before the meetings
of the commissioners court. No claim, bill or
lccomt shall be allowed or paid until it has been
examined and approved by the county auditor. The
auditor shall examine the same and stamp ::a
val thereon. If he deems it neceaaarv
l ~pp-
1.b
accounts. bill. or claims must be ver totI by a i-
davit touchlna the correctners of the same. The
auditor la neroBy 4utnoritaa to ldQini8ter oaths
for the purposea of this law.* (Empharis added.)
In Nacoadoches County v. Jinkina, 140 S.W.2d
901 (Tex. Civ. App. 1%U error rer.1 and Nat doches
County v. Winder, 140 S.\j. 2d 972 (Te&. Civ.+!hm,
error ref.) tne court said that the above article
should be &trued In connection with the succeeding
article, which related tc 81claima based upon contracts
lawfully made, and account0 for supplies and material
supplied and contracted for as required by law.‘* These
cases held that a county official(e claim for,;a;;F did
not come within the terms of Article 1660.
authority of these cases, it is our opinion that Article
1660 does not apply to claims for traveling expenses
allowed under Senate Bill 131. We have been unable to
find any other statute which would authoriae the audi-
tor to require an affidavit in this instance.
In view of the foregoing, you are advised
that the county auditor cannot require affidavits of the
county conmissioners before approving payment of claims
for traveling expenses under the provisions of Senate
Bill 131.
SUMF:ARY
The eotnrty euditar is not authoriaed to
ra uire affidavits of the county conaissioners
be 4 ore approving payment to them of the allowance
.
. _
tlon. Awtln ?. Anderron, we 4 (V-1344)
for traveling expmres and depreciation on
their automoblfer provided for in Senate
Ml1 131 Ada 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, ch.
456, p. $12.
APPROVED
: Yours very truly,
J. C. Davis, Jr. PRICE DANIEL
County Affairr Ditieim’ Attorney General
Jome P. Luton, Jr.
Reviewing Aselstant
Charles D. Mathrwm
Pirrt AwirUnt Amistant