Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVER SELLERS NrrO.RNM GENERAL , . O$lQlOla an& ahllw aI to the proper procedure to pw5Uie uwler the olr0tmr6anaes. The pert fagts la,the aewe may be CouM la lq 8.W. ?:’ Berles 013 Patp 1089. !me olalm rubmittell to UI b Hr. 2. B. Blokett, lawysr at Liberty, ‘Pexdia, a f toraeJ for Mrs. )lartin et a1 1s enaloded here- with. Please return them to me vlth your opinloo.” 8’7C The HfMlrrr uebe g~a ed permlariaa to ?@i~ rtilt &iln.t tb State of Team3 J w the mghuay agoltmemt 'Of the State of 2exas by Act8 W55, 44th Id lrlatzare,’Chapter 21 The pertlaent sQotlons 0% thiniAct are an loIrot? 511* .. %a. 4. T&at proaera lo ewh suit say h oervdl upon the oovwoa oi Twas and the Elttorasy Qmural of Tsar 8~8 e%y &t@ment vhlch may be re- ooosred by reaao~ of,'the promoutlon oi thlm au&b &all be oamble 5118 of’ bbe foods of the lilmy 87’7 Bon&able P. ,C. Cheer, fnt&b 3 !I%8XiM'tlar'rulb War Mae& otiU````5d$/@;- g8Ms ‘or ti mghuey IM+Ptntunt. la this State that the State lo Mb liable for the tort8 or ncgllgsans ot it8 offloere or a@ats OF 8eymata eagsged 10 the perforlilfmt8 ai a gowmlls5ntsl funotloo, utas55 it ha8 e~rersly l88roLbdsugh llobtllty. 10 la Uso well wt- t&b: that the lcwatloa, &e#lgartlon,ooamtruatiaa ud rule tenanm of Sbate hl@away8.b;r the Fll&?ay JWarbm8at a8 10 wooy OS the at&be 18 0 vwmatu lutwtloc%. mate ** nalSiaplm7,76 8.W. (24) $8f 8tate v. Plovera, 94 8.U. (?cI) l93~ Brooks (I. Stat 63 2J.Y;(RI) 534, wro~ rofused~ Martla vs Sbabeb 88 SJ?. C%b) 41, 05ror r&mod. The doabplas ot raqmUerb s~rior -Qaw sob lvxil a@lart the 8wo~eligz~ ID the moortar rrsploymeot op"pub110 amate.’ 'Iboexmapblorr 1. beti ~$08 the aOvwa$gn ohWa6tsr of the Jstata rod it8 ugeaaler, aad upoa the abssme of obllgatl.om, aad nob on bhs grouua that 00 resisdy bar beea provided. SW State ve Plcw555, rupee. Therefore,the. lo ~165 resulti in bh8 death cd Hartlo gzm rln to I&OPiabillty agalaeb x5 state cul&55s the State ha8 expaw85l.yu85tmd swh l.iabillby. Slnab them uaS LIOgm8ral &if lo 4Sfa,4bat Ehe bum af thl8 i&jo%y a8- ruml~.81& llablliby, bhe questloa ar154a:uhebher Seqtiw 3 of the Aot -0s. m5; quoted Umos, cw be eoPlerOrued a8 suoh aaallsapt 1QR.' “IS the AQt be omkstnmd a8,a 8gw!lal law, depolvlqg the state ai a deSenae 10 a partWutea oaw, 10 la uaaowtitutlowl an be1 Vlt5WXWJ at Seotloa 3 of tbs Texas Bit ot Rl3 tii rkbth provider that all 5140 rbnll hw5 4~51 &Wr.’ It 15 5l50 vloletlv* of Artmle 111,~s55Eloo 56, ' of OLW Sbste GoollOLtutloa,~ vhloh ,provlde8btxib aa'loca3 or 'kpeelal lav &all be.Qrmrotedi&We 8 ~aeral Uv 4aO be We liQ&2ltOrb&. 'The Pu*- .wm.oi thir eoaotlButloaa1 tuhl+ftfon 4@rist t&4 ,c@ctsmab of local or 5$-5418Xlaur 18 a,obols- 503e ORea' It is intouded 00 prwttnE the woatlrrg of 5p44ial~prlvlle~58 and ta 844`` utllformlty of hu ~througbout the State 88. far 68 pos8ibl.e. ( bllllerv. El Pa50 County, 136 Fex. 370, 150 S+W. (pd) 1000, lGG1. 2% oc~bainly MS aot the in- t$otiw of tib*fraraereOS our CoasP,Ltutton that lion0 19ble 2. C:‘Groar, p0ge 4 Cbs Btete rbauld hays arrtain QsPencea sgainst sosc) iad~oiduals, but not against otbera alarilar- ly altuatod. * ln rlew of Ch%f’aroi;oin``, nsi&hO.r tbo dlstrlat court of Liberty CEountp, nor my other co&H, undar any alr- cucmtanac,o, &ad juriodiotion to render thn judglaonf wbiah w48 rrnd4rod hero, and ttiorrsfore Chr judgment is rold in its antlmCy. Thn rulr has booa tbua rtated by the 3iprci.w Cmrt in hIthor v. Mttrrscrn, 27 Tax. 4918 *Order8 or judgasnCa which the aouxt baa not cha powor unarr any olrmbarCmaos to make or raador of eaurao , aall ad, balm mull, tholr null- !zi’nmy br nseorbad In say aallrtsral proasodlna, whore they CLII rrllrd on in support OS e alala Of right. vhe aaae or an adminfatrrtioa upm t&3 aetata or o llvlng raan has alrasdy barn gl~cn 08 an oxaa- plr of absoluts .aulllty of the pmcasEla&a of a probate aaurt, svan whsre svary 4Eep has beau taken with perfoot rsgularlty; and It ir ~11 to bsar la mind that in thls aaae the prooeadln&:s OS ths court axe absolrrtqly null, bowauec) the aa la act ana UPOOwhloh ths eouy.t~ Ithe, the tiffht to dellbsra te, and not for any or;hex reraan.” Cf like erfoc? le Ckiujr fr Cowdan, 251 3. %. 622, writ rstueau. ‘iWe CYBB Involved. Q ti+ituntlon ahera 4 gumdim sjqliod for parnlssioa tii ox~laa1~3 hsr wmlta iana tor ~UA~B la another county. The oaurt gmitsd tha epplioatlon snd t&e d6t0as w6m axchangad. After ths serrda Barn of age, they brweht wit to umwsl tha guardlanla ~&ad snd to puliut title. TRo court aala: Vhs dssa sou ht to bs aanaslsd Is void bo- aaueo the appliart I!on af the guardlsa, ths order of the aourt, and the approval order, .-se wall 84 the daod, lrhow that the probeEs court had not the power to euthorlze ths (gusrdian to sxohW$a ths land4 of tho wards. Therefor th4 or%ara war@ subjsct to eolletaral attmck. . . . Hondrable D. 0.~’GreeP, page 5 “The guardian Is nowhere authorized to exahange the lands of the wards by any atatuts, so the pro- bate oourt aated in excess of its jurlsdlatlon, . . . .” Set;~also Commtinderv. Bryan, 123 S. w. (2) 1008. Sinas the judgment Is abaolutaly voici:; ft oannot oonstltute a valid olaim’against the State or the, State High- way Funds. Therefore, It 1s the opinion of this department that Rouse Bill No. 826 is unoonstltutlonal beoause it,is In vlolatlon of Artlale III, Seotlon 44, of the State Constitution. We return herewith your file on thla matter. Very li.fulp yours ATTORNEY’ tiji3Bm. OF TEXAS ALM:db b”nolo6urs