Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1943 )

OFFICR OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
11
Honorable H. C. Neavss
county hudltor, wayaon county
ghoraan, Tsxar
Dear Sir:
We aoknowledgs r60 letter, nhloh reada,
ia part, M r0liw8:
rtalnlng to the above qwrtlonz
"'TO ALL COUNTY TAX lessors-COtiTORS
"'SUBJECT: DIeposition or the 254 oollsoted rrom
Agent for Certlrioata or Tltls and Retained by the
Aseesaors-Colleotore or Taxes a8 Designated Agent.
-,
1 3
E&orable B-. Gr‘l&vaa, page 2
HOnorable R, C; Heaves, pwe 5
have deposl$ed this fund. Disbgrsem4nts may be
Blade iTomthin fUyl by $‘ou’ior,~the pWpo80 et pq-
ing expense8 neoaa~aary to erriaientiy pei-forcthe
butlerrequired br you in tbg t%rt$tioate o? Title
Aat.
%%I reallw that fin a numbaX Of.#IJMll~OOUU~i48
there ls$ot aufiiaient title business$s~ra;t
the employment of a full-tM8 olerk.
staXtO88, it f8 8%&48t4d that; th4 Olerk assi@.Md
these dut.248 be pafd prOp0rtiOnately on a part-time
basin rron title k~iae awl,the remainder of the sal-
'arp be paid out ~oi other if308 0r four ,0rrw4.
w!Wu raqueet that an aaourato record be maln$alned:
by you of all moei+ #nd &i~bur~em@nte Uider th8
Sert5rioat.e of Tit&o Bill. En this oonneQtlo9.we
re~qqtmt
that roti etalntain'reOoXd6
Of diebux8emnt*
UAd8xthe ~0110wSn~ aoooiintsr
i
/
Honorable R. C. Neaves, page 4
exaeed 'the retained amoulits actually 08 deposit.
*c'Phe balanoes on hand at tha:end 41 eaaja quarter
msy b&retained until iaHhef,nirtide. At the pre-
sent time, it is our lstentipn to olose such aooounts
on Deaember 51 ofaaob year, wlththe bal.anoe 61% hand
at that time to b9 reportad and transal.tted to the
.State rtk@rap PepeZtment .?or NptUttt to the State High-
way lM4&.
"cT``Depart08it requests that @.l ~deptltfeeem-
ployed by god handUn& Certifioates of Title be bonded
.ancthatthe bonapm4iuatlbe paid feo*thlsfund,the
bond8 beln$ r0tdn8a & y&u- QO6SW$diC+O.' * * **
:
~Bonor~ble H. 4. Neaves, page 5
i ;
returned to.tha oounty tax assessor-qolleotore
by this Department aftEer:theeourt deoieion hold-
ing that this Depsrtmnt had no interest in suah
reestw
Subsequently, lntha oase of State v. Glass, 161 5. W.
(Zd) 296, rehearlngdenfea Santiary 83, 1943, wrlt of error re-
fqrd, the Court of Oivll Appeals held that the assessor and
oolleotor of taxes ia diache,rglIigthe dutgea requited of him
uuder the Certiiloate OS %tlr hot Se not ~lsohairging any dub
ties pertainlug to any separite agenpy or orfloe,‘but that all
such duties required of hia are~##v@ autkes added by the statu;,
,3&s to the offloe of assessor a& @e8 eat-or of tams;, and that
such fqw~e were to bs~aooouated for byJr,&&to the oountfIn the
their aedctrlea.
: _.
..RonorableR'. C. Naavee., pb&e 6
I
3
Honorable R. C. Beams, p~fge 7
agalust Fox, its Tax Aaeeaeol?, for salaries paid by Fox to
his d8putlee rpr the years.1990 to 1986. The deputies wara
paid from fees of orfloe oolleoted br Fox. At the trial it
was oontended by the oouhty that the Tax Ae%eusor was not en-
titled to oredlt ior the ualarlee paid to da#utles baoause ha
did not rpake applloatlon to the oomlssionera* oourtfor au-
thority to appoint deputlea and the oomuWrrlonersg court had
not granted auah autbDrlty aa required by statute. See A&l-
01s b909, supra. The Oou@t aontinuadr
1.
l* * * War does it appear that. the aomvle-
elonere' oourti, at any time during said parlod,
entered an order fixing %he number of deputies
to k ,appointea 01:rixw ‘%he.
aimunt of their
*alarlea; aa the etatute pre8orib~a. The 0ountJr
that, beoauea the ourrqnt
i.uLnrlst* statutory pro-
'visions fa the various reapecfta stated wore not
met, lrox is not entitled to the aredlt dlafmed
br him, tid that the ~auau r#.alaed by him, 09 ao-
yp$mor said salaries, are unfawfally retained.
The Oourt rule&t
.,.. ..~...~
.,,,~.,.,..>
.~..~.. . . ~,,., :...~ .,,~:ir&y.;)
.~..~.,.. :,