Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ‘TEXAS
AUSTIN
Iioaorable E. 8. lomlaan
couu*y Alditor
wrm0n c0~nw
Beaumont, Texas
nalnot uaplayao (aoting in
auring right of way for one
), is the Comuk~aionera' Court
ploy outa2do legal help to es-
p OP District AttOl'My on behalf
of either the abare muted Praainat empl~yes or
the Comniasloners~ court and pay suoh is0 from
306~8on% Brlc4;sPreainat ikmde?
*I$ youp aximwr is that suah fee aim not
be pi& from iioad and Bridge hrnde, then 3:ii@k
if it my be gaiu fa~omany other county Fund?
Eouereble E. 8, Fo-, Pa&e 3
does not have th4mpower to deprive the county
attorney of his rightrul authority in this re-
gard. The employment of oouueol fa restricted
to opeofal u(raeawhere the services of at at-
torney ere required- nor has the oourt power
to make an order whfah will warrant the pay-
ment of aounty monapto nn attorney for aerv-
108s neither raquired nor poriorao4.* (~hii8
WI* Seugler, 250 SOW. W31.Olbron ~a. Psvia
236 S.W. 202) Temll ~8. Groaao, 31 Y.W. 631.)
s?y18;;. Atanooaa Oounty, (Cit. App.) 32
. .
Dhder-the holdinga oi the ebom manMonad easoa,
ft ia apparent that the oommirdoqere~ oourt haa tho.~owar
end luth o r to ityeiikjt&x ~ttornnye ia tho pr~reoutfon of ita
olnlau and mite aridpep for nukh servleer out Qt .the .a-.
oral fund 0rth8 aouaty whwx thooouxity,~aa luhole, f* ,;
intometed aud aitaokd In eueh proooe~ec
In the oaae oi City mtioaa1 Bank of hurrtin ta.
Pneldio County, 26 S.bb.775, it wan held that the oamnia-
81onera* oourt wan authorized to employ oouneel to repre-
moat the oommil@iomra``oourt in a suit W&i&i wee bra t
l&aatthe county dm and the oommlsalauezsk,.enjo%i
alhged U&gal eotion of the oomM8rfonsr8~ oourt in ru-
ls01JpBthe aounty seat of Presidia County from Fort J&via
to iaria. The oourt held that while the atit wau nosisal-
ly egefnat the deier&nts 88 indirldualc, it we8 desS.gu&l
to control the perromencs of their oiflolal oeta, au%
theretofore ~88 e nettee of 00n06m to the uounty. In this
oonneotion the oourt maid:
~iile it-0 nominally a suit agaeinet
thau as indivi%ufde, its %eaign a&a effect weo
to obstruat ax% control the performance of
their oftiaiel aote, end we are not %l..eposed
to hold in nuoh CIoam Oh&t they mist do noth-
I.= towards %eten%ing certain cults, or nuet
em>loy oounsel et their own expense. They ha%
pO:iorto employ aounnel, an% to defray the ree-
amable expenaea thereof out of the oounty
itm%S."
The wurt elw held that the right to employ
COUIIBQ~m03 not Gqendent upon whether ths order or tba
00LJPisal015~r8*
cart wtiob was unaer attack 108 valid or
UlV8U.d. cm thlo point thfsoourt aaldr
FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORNEkT GENE3.L