Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

_3r’
0: _:
‘...:.&/....’
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonolrble LOPOT L. ltoon
county Attommy
mustar! county
Croakott, Toxm
vhiah 18 paid for by
llrted a8 8 duty ot
e 3891, Vernon'r Annotated Cl011 Stututer,
provider, 9a part, 88 r0iiov8:
I
* . All aurront fee8 emned and aol-
. .
looted . . . during a4 flrasl par in allce88of
the maximum and @foe88 alloved br thir Aot, . . .
ohallbr paid into the Countr Fr.ar~. . . .
gonomblo Iaroy L. Moon, Page 2
The aOmpenMtiOn limitation8 ~daarimumr
h.min fired Oh& al80 Epplf t0 811 fO.8 and
ooqmn8atiOn VhlitOO@VOr 0OllOat.d by raid
offloem ln their offla~l aapaalty, vhethor
aaoountablo 88 f@OO Of Offi under thr ~lW8~~t
l&v, and 84 lav general o r l peolal, to the
oontrary lo hamby upra88ly rupoalod. The
only kind and ahamoter of aanpenratlon exempt
fran the provlrlonr of thl8 Aat rhnll be ro-
vardr morlved by shrrirro . . . and money8
received by County Judge8 and JU8tiCe8 of the
Peaoe ror prrformlng marrlag* oemmonle8, vhloh
OUIDOOha not be raaountablo for . . . 88 fee0
of offiaer’
Seatlon 61, Artlole 16, Conotltutlon of Toxar pro-
Vid.8, in ptbrt,a8 follovs:
I . All aounty offlaorr la aountler
havlng i &pulatlo* of 20,000 or mom, , . .
#hall be oarPpsn8atsdon a salary baalo, . . .
all foes earned by . . , county . . . offloerr
shall be paid Into the oounty treasury . . .
vhen oollrcted.”
In pumuanoe o? the foregoing aonrtltitlonal mandate,
Section 1, Art1010 39120, Vernon'8 Annotated Clvll Statutea,
provider that no county shall pay to any aouM.y offloer In a
oounty having 6 population of 20,000 or mom, a4 fee or oom-
mission for a4 remrice performed a8 ruoh lffiCer 8.
Seatlon 6, Artlolr 39120, provlder, ln part:
‘It shall be the duty of al1 offl6om to aharge
and collect ti the manner authorized by lav all
fO88 and acmmlr8lonr vhloh am permitted by l8v
to be a8sssred and oolleated for all offlclnl
semloe performed by them. A8 ad Vhen suOh fee8
bra oolletotedthey rhell be gqo8lted in the
Offlamm Selary Vund, , . .
Section 22, Artlals 39120, V.A.C.S., provider, in
partr
Honomble Loroy L. L(oom, -go 3
"'Ru p3bV&81OM Of th18 &It 8h11 be aUDJU-
latlvo or all lhV8 not la oopillot hwewlth."
UndSr Artlole 3912e, a8 It nlAte8 to oompennratlon
of aouaty Offiaem and vrOVid*8 that the 8t&tUtO ohad bS
ouBUhtlV@ OS all Other &V8 not ir,OOPnlat thorwith, thO8S
l'OV181OM of Artlole 3891, rroala in lffa o vhloh
t nqulr~
Pl, that ourmnt Seer oarned and aolleated by aounty offloars
ln OX0088 o fthe ma x imum
llbvana. should bo paid into the
County Tre8rury and (2) that the Ooaqaenutlon and WinUlllO
thereln fixwl 8hOUld apply to all fooo end aompen8atlon vbat-
sowar aolleated by orid offloSr8 in their offlolal aapaoltlss,
vhbther aaoountable 88 Seer OS offlaer under the pmreat law
(HueaoS County v* Currington, 162 S. W. (26) 68'7). It Is clear
tbst the aompenSuatlanmformd to in your Inquiry 18 not of
the kind ti ohmaotor exempt from the provlrloar of Artlolr
3891, sup=.
In th. O.S8* Of hOO.8 bu!ltJ 1. CUPringtOn, 162 8.w.
(26) the aounty tax a880880r
687, and oolleator ~88 sued by
the oounty for the maovery of the amount of certain fees or
charge8 aolleoted by Said asse8sor and oolleotor for thr ls-
suanoe of tax oertlflaateo. tie tax 688088Or pnd OOlhCtOr
contended that thSm ~88 no rtatuto~ duty on hSr part to ir-
BUS tat OtatSmSnt8 On property vhen thS tar08 Vex’8 not dslln-
quent, and that the rervlae of 108uing a~rtlflaato8 on property
Vh6UW th @th Xl~tUO V&O nOn-d.OliPqu4Lit V&8 8 VOrSOMl UNiCO
and that rho VW ontltlod to make a pbmonal ahargo thrrwfor
srd nthin 8uOh money 80 m0eiV.d. The COUrt held tbrt thlr
pertlaular lSN1aS va8 in p4rforrannaeof 8n sat vhloh she vas
suthorlred to do by rtatute, and thonfon, lUah fee 80 OOl-
leoted -8 In an *orfiaihi BqxLoltf , and that rush fee8 lhould
be paid into the County Treasury, rogardlrrr of vhothor or not
thr fOO8 vora properly aOllOatSd. ThO Court f’urther hold tbht
%liiOSO a fO0 18 nrovlded by bV iOr aIi OffiOihl 8eNlae re-
quired to be perfimod, non; w by legally ah&d therefor.
It doe8 not follov. hovovor. that b OountY vhoro offlolel ool-
eat8 a fee rowfilly. but under oolor of offloe. Is not en-
titled to haze rame dmo8ltod and nald Over ln the 8amo me-
u 18 naw for w of fnr rm oolleat*
In the 0886 of Crorby County Cattle Co. v. MocDennStt,
281 S.W. 293, the Court held that it va8 not vlthln the 'official
Hoaomble Loroy L. Hoore, P&go 4
duty” of 8 t8a aolleotor to mke 8 oertlfled lirt from tar
reOord8 in hi8 Off100 rhOVtn# the ~8 mt of -08 md by
vhm paid on 80 tract8 of land for tc yam 1901 to 1917, in-
01U81V.. 8uah 8 8ONlae v88 definitely beyond that required
in ?umirhlng the uru81 tax rtatemento, ourrent and delinquent,
merely shoving vhether the t8xer an 8 tmot at th8t time, 8re
paid or’unpsld, vhioh has been held to be an *offlois hot”.
The detemlnatlon of the matter 80 to vhether a
rerpice performed by 8n of?10181 18 in hi8 ~offloial aapaolty”
depend8 upon the olmumrfanoer under vhlah the oompen8atlon
1s received 8nd the speol?la purpose for vhlah it va8 received
8s suah olmumst8noe8 8nd purpose8 relate to the pumlev and
saope of the fbnatlonr of that partloulbr offlae. A fhat sltus-
tloa involving olmum8t8aae8 md purpomer almost analogour to
tht prerented by this lnqulry Is preoented in the 08se of Boerd
of Co~lorlonem of Bennepln County v. Dlokey, 0 N.U. 775s
86 lunn., 331, sup. ct. of nlnn. Pnvlow to 19a
91, the aompea-
sstlon of the dirtriot alerk o? Hennepin County vas established
by a spool.81fee schedule. &a that yur, thlr offioer va8 paid
8 fired lal8ry In lieu of all fee8 vhlah he had been alloved
to retain before that time, aad he vao required, under the la la r y
lav, to turn over to the county treasury all Seer aolleoted by
him In hi8 official ChphOity. The fees for offlolAl SONi
of the clerk, aooordlng to the fee rohadule, vere not changed
In any vay biter the aompen8atlon var ohhnged fran the fee baols
to a fixed ralary. After the olerk took possessloa of the of-
floe, vlth hi8 oaupensatloa fixed a t a deflalte &ary, he aoa-
tlaued a pmatloe of furnishing dally reports to abrtmat oom-
pbn.iesbnd oamaemlal agenoler. There unauthentlaated repOrt8,
given out rt regular lnteNals, oonoemed information derived
from the ii108 and lWOOrd8 vlth refemnae t0 8UitO aommenoed,
amounts Involved, ns vell 8s judgment8 lntomd md docketed.
There vao no express strtutory requirement for the olerk to
reader this rervloe, aad no fee vas rtipulhted la the fee sohed-
ule for ruch re~loe. Por this vork, the alerk rocelved a oom-
pen8atloa agreed upon betveen him and tho8e to vhan the rtate-
mentr vere fuml8hed.
In this oar. the Court held thbt the furnlohlng of
these unautheatlaated stateaents to oamemial 8genoie8, eta.,
made from aa kxamlaatloa of the file8 aad I’eOOl’dOin his auotody,
vas vlthin the purvlev 8nd raope of hi8 offlal81 employment, 8ad
that the olerk vas not 8uthorired to 8 pm ri8te to his ovn Use
the acmpenoatlon reallsed therefran. phe knmt held further
the fsot th8t a rchedule of Seer had been prerorlbed for the
Ponomble Leroy L. Moore, Page 5
8ONiO88 Of UI OffiOihl 18 at!tU invariable te8t thbt tb
lmmemtod 8emlae8 ma the only one8 randond in hi8 @0rri0ibi
Oh $ lh a it~ s, th.
Vithin M h llhQOfh lllOt providing t&t hi8
86~17 8ba11 bo in ,tll p8ymOat for all seNloe8 reador Ia
hi8 OffiOhi Ohphaity.
b di8aU88ing alBttOl’ &S t0 Vb8t OOnOtitUte8
th0 lfOO8m
t301 1 0in
0ted
a nlo r tia iro l
a p b a lty thme,
Court r b idr
.It L8 olalmed thbt the money8 reooivsd
b resp~ahnt for the 8tbtemente ?umlshed to the
6!i rtraat
" mena ndlgsaoleo vere not ~feer,' b8 thbt
vord la proprrl UndOr8tOOdj tbbt 'fOO8' bre oompan-
8btiOn for wrt I OUbl' hOta Or 8ONiOOO rondored by
pub110 OfflOor Ln the line Of their duty, ~8 ex-
presrly deoignated and luthorlred b y lav. Th18
alelm 68 thU8 abstreatlt 8tbtOd 18 oorreat 68 fbr
68 it goer, yot ve must rtlll oon8ldor vhether the
olerk oould appropriate to hi8 0vn uoe ei!IOlUmOnt8
for servlaer not vlthln the provlrlon8 of the fee
sohedule, vlthout referenae to their lsssntlal
oh&motor, simply beoaura not mentioned therein.
The hot of 1891 prs8arlber in terms thbt the olerkg8
salary hall be in ?ull for all servloe8 rendered
in hlr ~offlalal oapaalty'. It vould therefore
seem neoersary to dstemlne vhether the foe bill
fumlrher a fitiri0i0e orlterloa of the olerkL's
legal dutle8, and hen00 la &a lnvarl&ble te8t of
~o?floial abpbolty,g vheraby the right to mtala
or tullrover 8ay OOmpea8otlon ha reoelvns 18 to be
tested. The Honnopfn aotuty fee bill before the
oommutatloa provided ln the salary bat oould hardly
be regarded b8 rum.lshlag tho sole standard of 0s.
flolal obllgatloa lmpoled upon the alerk by lav.
St 18 trw th8t thlr sohedule lotablirhsd the smolu-
ment8 0s tha offioe. In this mrpeat ths olerk va8
ooatrollsd by it. It v&s slro a proteatlon to the
publla bgalnot Improper aharger an4 ualavful exao-
tiOZl8, but & VOW 8light &ppliMtiOn Of lV88Ollt0
exlrting ooadltlms vi11 shov thet it oould not
hsve been regarded 6s tho sole s~wsure of ~offlalal
oapaaltyl or ths limit of the legal burdens impored
upon th ale*. We shall rind upon inveetlgatloa
awerow lnrtanoer in our proaedure statute8 vhere
dUtiO8 &HI iBIpO8Od Up alOrk8 Of aOUFt8, YOt VO
vi11 not diraover ia this or Other ?Os bill8 lXVXJ88
Honorable Leroy L. Moore, Page 6
requlrsment8 th8t ruoh offloer8 rh81l do any
bat vhbteve~, 80 that, if the80 raheduler are
to be regarded 68 tort8 of duty, It must be for
the ma8011 that luah dutie8 bra implied beaau8e
oompmsatlon 18 provided therefor, That duties
bra lmplled from their reoognltlon ln a fee bill
may be true, but if ve vere to go to fee rohedulas
to aroertala from that souroe &lone vhen the alsrk
hot8 in btlOffiOisi OapaOlty, VO Shall 6180 find
that in material re8peotr they are inadequate , , ,
bny aomparl8on betveen the duties for vhioh fees
to offlolals bra 8peolfloelly provided and those
vhlch are lmplled ~111 show that lmplloatlon Is
the rule, express requirement the exoeptlon. The
legislaturehas already lmposed, and may llkevlse
hereafter impose, upon publie offlaials, smoag
them olerkr of court, duties for vhleh no emolu-
ments bra pnsorlbed. Suah dutleo cannot be evaded
upon the olaim that fees bra not lpeolfloally de-
signated thenfor; slnae the reasonable vlev 1s
vell settled by the dOolOiOn8 that the emolument8
allowed to a pub110 officer under a fee system of
compensation constitutes the sole remunemtlon he
is to receive for.hlr entire official services.
Hechem Pub. Off. a 862, snd cases altsd; State v.
Smith fwinn.) 87 N.w. 775,
"~aquertionably,OffiClalS are rerponslble
publlo agents, vho murt ltserve pub110 interests;
and no duties enjoined are more velghty than many
lmpO8Od upon court olerko, vho are l&rusted vlth
the bb8OlUtO aontrol of reaords o? the highest im-
port&nor; and it ha8 r1vby8 been the objeot of the
lav not only to have suoh reoords open at proper
timer for pub110 inspection, but to require suitable
aid fran their custodians ln the reco&sed benefits
to 611 vho need lnfomatlon therefrm. Hsaoe It
vould follov that the giving of lnfonnatlon,by the
olerk or his salaried deputlee, during office hours,
vhich require8 eraminatlons, snd, as lnoldent to this
vork, vritten 8tbtement8 of the IWSUltS, la in its
very essence and charaoter offlaial, and not personal
to the officer, upon any fair and reasonablelvlevof
vhat appertains to the duties of the offloor
A,rtlole3920, V.A.C.3. prerorlbes a fee for a ooustty
clerk to certify any fact or faotr oontalned in the recorda Of
gonomble Leroy L, Hoore, Page 7
hi8 O??iOO. !Thobmako 8nd other oannerol81 ln8tltutlons
mentioned aould get the derired ln?omatlon in that vayr
I? the ln?omatlon van seaumd in that vay, there 18 no
doubt thbt ruoh rervlao rendered by the alerk vould be la
hi8 *0rrl0tri aapbalty,’ The f&at that 8Ubrtantiblly the
s.WM lafolmrstlon 188~be given out ID 8 different r0m, or
18 not aertlfled to, doe8 not relieve ouoh rervloe from be-
- orrloid ln rmture, emanatdng fram the oifioe of the
aounty olerk. In this Ooaneotlon, in the a&se of Board of
~~lsrlonem of IleaaeplaCc. v. D%okey (suy.ra),the Court
* it Is provided that the clerk ohall
have foi iv;& oertlflcate .fwnlrhed 6 e~eolfled
fto. Whllc no certiflastes to the80 statements
vex-0l’OQlt8ted,or, In fact, sttaahed, yet state-
meats over certlflcatos could h8ve been deprsaded,
and the clerk vould, under the Inplied obligatlonn
required by the fee bill, have been bound to have
given thomr Vhlle vt vould not hold that the strte-
manta ?urnlshad teohnloslly is11 wlthln either of
these speoiflo provlslons for fees, yet the purposes
for vhloh they vezw lztcnded lnMcr.te tha objeots
sought thereby, rnd ahazwattrize the rervloes actual-
ly rwdored as offlalal . , . .
"We must not f&&l to give till slqnlflaonoo,
in dealing with the~questlons preoented, to the
efrlolent results of the salary hot, and the
ohanged rel8tionr betveen the olerk and the coua-
ty offected thereby. It is quite alem Iran the
very terms of this act that the oounty vso to h&V0
all smolumeots for the alcrkgs offlclal aeNlae8,
or vf;ichcould be reasonably obtilned~by a falth-
fil adminlstrstlon of thr offlae , . . . If oopleo,
oertlflcattr, or ss"mher vh4re no aoples Yore made
would vlthia my fair intention or e%pootatlon pro-
vide a m08no bv vhloh rervloes of the clerk vould
be given to aeouro legltimcrteend*, it ought not
to be evrded by any plrn ths$ vould deprive the
oount of its revenuer to ortbts parqulelter for
hlm84f..
I . .
“Ye 8re themfom required to adopt tha oon-
oluolon tht a proper legal vlev Of the alerk'r
HonOMblO Leror L. moor*, Rage a
duty to dul vlth tha moner thw noelvrd frcm
the 8tataentr furnlrhed to the abrtmot mm
rad lM l@ Omurt b edo tenr ln~ bdg b lndh i868.
t r lg hto
r o r3% trlp p r o p r i4th
tr 4M a oto h i8
ovn UIO, Upon the OOnridrr*tion# tht ruoh rtate-
mUit VW@ iurn18h4d b hi8 OffiOhf tip&Oity,
md thbt it V48 11kW18. th0 int@lW8t snd th0
olur right of the oounty to broo the oaepoaaa-
tiOIi l'M0iV.d tbMfW tUFllOd intO it8 trOb8v;
Ubd it ir Of LIO8ignifiWtlOO thbt the 8pOOifid
fro8 Qrovldod for in th. 8Ohedulo for 8e8rehO8
VOX’@ llOtin tOm8 eXbOtod, Or OVOll that BOFO
than logal foe8 hbd boon reaelvod br the llork;
for, ruoh rervloer be- offioi81 in OhbMoter
uid hbVfng bOOK4VObld@AX'il~ Qbid, uhatOV8l'Vb8
80 paid bOO8W b NIOUFOO Of the OOlUlt~,, Wkd not
b perqulrito of the rlerk, But, if any quertion
OOtid *rite l8 t0 the OOrCbOtne88 Of Oh8l'ge8thur
made, it vould be of no avail to the re8Qondent,
nor oould he take bdV8ntagO of mi8tak.n right8
if&thlr X'O8PttOt. Thi8 vould be b QUe8tiOn to
bo 8Ottlsd bOtV8m the ~eI'8on8eying fOl'the
8Ol’ViOO8 brd th0 OOUdJ . . . .
From the foregOill& it bpQObr8 thbt th. rending Out
of mortgqa li8t8 t0 bank8 Or other8, i8 &n bOt don. under
olroumrtano@8 and for 9urpo8ar vhloh lndl8bta thst 8uoh rwvloe
18 vlthln tha purviev md 8oope of the offfoibl aqdoyment and
the fUDCtiOB8 Of b OOllIity olork. A180, it 18 V.11 8OttlOd that
vhon the oa&Mn8ation of 4 pub110 offioor ir loft to oonrtruo-
tlon, it mart be frrvombly oonatrued in fbvor of the goverment.
(%8thIid County v. I&ml, 288 8.V. 5181 Burke v* Bexar County,
271, 3.V. 132). VbOl'Ob 8tatUte 18 orpable Of tV0 OOlI8trUOtiOn8
one of vhloh vould give an offloer oompenration for hi8 rrmiccr
in 8ddltlsn to hi8 8al8ry end tha other not, the latter conrtruc-
tlon 8hOuld be bdOQtedr (kiddan ve krdy, 50 S.Y. 926)
Aftor oarefullr conrldering the pertinent oonrtltu-
tiOD81 ti 8htUtOrJ FOVi8fOM , together vith the buthoritie8
herein elted, it ir tEl opiaion of thlr departaent that the oom-
pmr&tion reorlved b7 b County Clerk for QIWEring &nd mailing
, and for other vork of b like natur8,
Out mortgage li8t8 t0 bstlcl
18 raeountable 68 8 fee Of OffiOO. YOU l re thertfore 8dvi8ed
that the County Clerk of Bourtoa County, or bnp other oounty in
2XJ
Bonorrblo Leroy L. Hoore, No 9
-8 ltStO QJOM k ing 0 l UbFJ br81#, rhould rarit 8UOh
lm* to tba county Tmruror fOF tbo benoiit of the Offloor'
wu?r plrdt
Tlu8tlag tht tha forogolng full~mrlms you, ln-
qulry, vo arm
JAXIff