Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

AUSTIN 11. - ffROvEFlSELLERS -N ATX-GRNEY GENERAL Honorable Jesse James State Treasurer Austin, Texas Dear Mr. James : Opinion No. O-7010 Re: Whether or not a warrant which haa been pal4 by the State Treasurer, but which was later charge4 back to the bank, which ha4 presented It, an4 received payment thereof because of a lack of proper endorsement, msy k3;a;t4when presented egain properly If such re-presentation Is beyond tie date allowe by statute for presentation. Your request for ari opinion upon the above subject mstter Is 8s follows: “Will you please give me your opinion as to whether we would be barred from repaying a war-ant under the following conditions : “The warrant in question was date4 May 24, 1943, an4 haa been pal4 by this department. The endorsement thereon Is now questioned. If we now charge thie warrant back to the bar&k that prsaed- e4 It to us, can we repay the warrant when It Is agaIn presented, properly endorsed, even though the date of the warrant would bar It from payment If It he4 never before been presented?” Article 4371 of the Revised Civil Statutes, Insofar as applicable to your Inquiry, Is as follows: “t l No money shall be pal4 out of the *, Treasury except on the warrant8 of the Comptroller, an4 no warrant nhall be paid by the Treasurer un- leus presented for payment within two years from the close of the fLucal year In whIoh such warrant was 188~04, but claims for the payment of such warrants may be presented to the Legislature fop appropriations to be made from which auah olaimU may be made." Honorable Jesse James, page 2 Now, the language, "and no warrant shall be pal4 by the Treasurer unless presented for payment within two years“, etc., means that such claim lrmstbe thus presented by the payee; or some other person shown to be entitled to present and collect such warrant as by endorsement by the payee, to the ena that the Treasurer may lawfully pay the same. While State warrants are not tegotleble Instruments, nevertheless it has been held that the language, "presented for payment" in connection with a State warrant, has the same mean- ing as wien that language Is used in our Negotiable Instrument JAW. (See Opinion No. 0-1362). If not thus presented by one entitled to receive pay- ment, and to one whose duty it is to make payment, there has been no presentation, within the meaning of the statute. If the'warrent In question was paid without a proper endorsement, snowing the right to receive payment to be In the person presenting the same, then it was wrongfully pai4, and If you should now charge the warrant back to the bank that present- ed It, the bank agreeing to the charge-back, the State will still be legally liable for the item t,othe proper owner of the warrant, but urder the statute above quoi.edyou will not be authorized ic pay the same upon presenta%lon, ever.inough prop- erly endorsed, For the reason tne period of ZZmitatioc For pre- sentation of warrants has expired. Tnls statute of limltatlor.,howeverl b&lng mereig a statute, it would be In order for the LegIsla~%ureto authorize the payment, and correspondingly your duty to make payment wlih- In such time as thu.sauthorlz,edby the Leglslatxr,e. Vary truly gax-9 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS By a/ OcIe Spear, Ocle Speer Aasis+.er.t 0s:NR:wc APPROVED JAN 12, 1946 s/Carlos C. Ashley FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved Opinion Committee By s/%iB Chairman ’ .