Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )

,
THEA NEYGENERAI.
OFTEXAS
August 10, 1951
Hon. George B. Butler, Chairman
Board of Insurance Commissioners
Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1234.
Re: Maximum salaries which
may be paid investigators
under Item 10 of the ap-
propriation for the Life
Division of the Board of
Insurance Commissioners
in House Bill 426, Act8
Dear Sir: 52nd Leg., 1951.
Your request for an opinion reads in part as
follows:
"We desire the opinion of your office
as to the proper interpretation of House
Bill 426, Acts 52nd Legislature, Insofar
as It relate8 to the maximum salaries of
investigators ,for the Insurance Department.
The appropriation for these investigators
18 found on Page 112 under the heading
Group 10 of the supplement to the House
Journal. You will note that the Act pro-
vides for 4 Investigators, none of whose
salaries shall exceed $3,320.00 per year,
but at the same time, the gross amount
of $13,680.00 is appropriated for the pur-
pose of paying these'salarles.
"Even if the salary of $3,320.00 was
paid to each of the four investigators,
only $13,280.00 could be expended. It
therefore appears that the bill contains
a patent ambiguity which necessitates an
interpretation looking to the legislative
Intent. We do not believe that a vain
act should be attributed to the leglsla-
ture and certainly this would be the case
if we interpreted this statute to mean
that the legislature had appropriated
$13,680.00 for the payment of certain
salaries and had at the same time prohib-
ited the use of $400.00 of this money
.
Hon. George B. Butler, page 2 (V-1234).
toward the payment of such salaries. It
Is the opinion of this Department, based
on the reasoning which follows, that the
correct meaning of the term ‘none to ex-
ceed $3,320.00 per gear' is actually 'none
to exceed $3,420.00 per year.' Your opin-
ion is therefore desired as to whether we
are correct in our interpretation which
would permit the payment of a maximum sal-
ary of .$3,420.00annually to each of the
four investigators provided for."
In the exhibits you have attached to your re-
quest, it is shown that under the appropriation bill
of the 51st Legislature for your department these in-
vestigators received a salary not to exceed $3,180.00
per year. With certain exceptions not here involved,
the 52nd Legislature provided for an increase of 1%
of the first $2,400.00 of the annual salary, or a total
of $240.00 per year, to all state employees making
$5,004.00 or less. This is evidenced by a comparison
of House Bill 426 as first passed by the House of Rep-
resentatives to its present form as finally adopted.
If this $240.00 increase applies to the investigator6
3n question, their salary would be $3,420.00. Other-
wise, their salary would be $3 320.00, which would
amount to an increase of only $140.00.
We are'of the opinion that the salary of
$3,320.00 set out in Item 10 18 an error and that it
should read $3,420.00. The Legislature obviously in-
, tended to raise these employee6 to not to exceed
$3,420.00, a6 evidenced by the total sum of $13,680.00
appropriated for Item 10, and as evidenced by the gen-
ersl increase of $240.00 to each state employee com-
ing within the category of those embraced in Item 10.
Also, the grand total appropriated for the Life In-
surance Division is correctly computed only if the
figure of $13,680.00 is used, rather than $13,280.00,
which would be the total amount for Item 10 if the 4
investigators were to receive only $3,320.00 each.
The rule with regard to the correction of ob-
vious legislative errors is stated in 50 Am. Jur. 219,
Statutes, Sec. 232, as follows:
"There are, however, many cases in
which it ha6 been regarded .proper to cor-
rect legislative errors. In this respect,
there is authority for the rule that cler-
ical mistakes should be disregarded, that
r’
Hon. George B. Butler, page 3 (V-1234).
manifest or obvious mistakes may be cor-
rected, . . . If a clerical error render6
a statute incapable of reasonable construc-
tion, the proper word or numeral will be
deemed substituted, where it can be sup-
plied by reference to the context or other
statutes. This is but making the strict
letter of the statute yield to the obvious
intent."
In Morrison-Merrill & Co. v. Industrial Com-
mission, 18 P.2d 295 (Utah 1 ) the Court in
construing a formula fixings% wZ1; compensation
applicable under a workmen's compensation act supplied
a decimal point In the formula, saying:
II. . . It is clear that in using the
formula a decimal point should be placed
before the 60. Section 3137, heretofore
quoted in this opinion, provides that the
injured employee 'shall receive 60 per
cent of his average weekly wages,' etc.
It Is obvious that the 60 in the formula
is intended as 60 per cent. When it is
obvious that there is a mistake or omis-
sion in a statute and the intention of
the Legislature can be collected from
the whole statute, court8 will deem the
proper word substituted or supplied~. 25
R.C.L. p. 978, % 227, and cases there
cited."
A similar result was reached by this office
in Attorney General'6 Opinion V-1117 (1950) wherein
It was held that '1951" was erroneously written for
"1950."
SUMMARY
The maximum annual salary which may
be paid to investigators under Item 10 of
the appropriation for the Life Division
of the Board of Insurance Commissioners
Hon. George 8. Butler, page 4 (V-1234).
In House Bill~426, Act8 52nd Leg., 1951,
la $3,420.00.
APPROVED: Yours very truly,
Wllllam s. mtt PRICE DANIEL
State Affairs Divieion Attorney General
Everett Hutchinson
EXeCutiVe A88i8tant
BYu3&
Charles D. Mathews Clinton Foshee
First A88i8t@It Aselstant
CF:jmc