Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

OFFiCE OF T?IE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN nonorable V. A. (;ollioa, kember I 80``6 of tiegents 0r the state ‘Peachare Colleges Of G.xam ’ Livingston, Tarrae, that .yotlr 1508 aertaio impr in sav naraom, Texas, the a in should be paid was completed, war- the amount aped to be irered to Mr. lIartin, who them at a diaaouat of took in oelling~hio war- e 0piniQn of this Depart- sther the Board must or 0011 e .eurrent rumw, er is reaeirable by law as money, om 0r notes or aoin. hull V. ~First hational bank, 1.23 0. 6. 106, 31 L. ed, ~97. hr. gartin Is perhaps laboring under the misapprebeuclion that a war- rant upon the Treasury of the State aonetituted l paVmentu of the State’ B obligation. This i8 inaorreat ; a warrant is efn;ply an order upon the state %easurer to pay, out of appropriated funds, as ana when the moneys are arall- able, a specified 6um of money. Th1.s is the mavner pre- scribed by lau for the payment of obligations OP the state,, and all persons entering into covtraats with the State are charged with knwledge that payment will be Uonoroble v. A, Colllna - page a Mae in~suah mannsr ae aad whea monkys are on hand in the Treasury. such rarrants, vhen funds are available for-their psyment in due order, are psid in sourrent runcw. It has long been settled in this State that the holdsr of a warrant upon the Treasury of' the State, iasusd by the Comptroller, who sells the warrant at a dimaount, aannot hold the State liable for the loss he thus suetains; that an orriasr or the State has no pm- er to obligate the State to pay auah least ana that the payment of such loss in prohlbitsd by Ssctlon 44 or Artiole 3 or the State Con8tltutl0n. State t. Wll- con, 81 f. 291, 9 2. w. l26. very truly yours ATl'OjblSX PltYEiUL OB TR2AF.t 2. 1. R'alrahlld AssLstant