Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

OFFICE OF ‘I’HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Ralph Brook
county Attorney
Lubbook County
Lubbook, Texan
Dear Sir;
Your request for op
*can a Conetabl
salary out of the ge
where he doss. not re
allowed by law ior h
e receives no
red by this department.
etter that the preoinot
psneated on the fee barie.
book county, Texas, aooordiq
1,782 Inhabitants.
3& Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Stat-
t aa r0ii0ws:
otherwise prdrlded In thlm Aat,
that may be retained by preoinot,
strict offioer8 mentioned in this
11 be as r0110wst
“3. In oounti63s 0ontalnin.g ae many aa thirty-
mven thousand ttve hundred and one (37,601) alld
not more than sixty thousand (60,GGO) inhslbitante,
IIonorable Ralph Brook, Page 2
1
or containing a city of over twenty-five thou-
sand ( 25,000 ) lnhabi tant s : County Judge, Dls-
triot or Criminal District Attorney, Sherlrr,
County Clerk, County Attorney, District Clerk,
Tax Collector, .Tax Assessor, or the Assessor
and Collector of Taxes, lhirty-five Hundred
($3500.00) Dollar8 each; Justice of the Peace
and Constable, “eighteen Hundred ($1800.00)
Dollars eaoh.
” . . . (1
Article 3891, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Stat-
utes, provides In part as followst
T&oh offioer named In th.le Chapter shall
rlrst Gut of the current roes or his offioe pay
or be paid the amount allowed him under the
provisions of Article 3883, together with the
salaries of hle assistants and deputies, and
authorized expenses under Artiole 3899, and
the amount neoeseary to cover ooets of premium
on whatever surety bond olay be required by law.
If the current fees of such offioe colleated
In any year be more than the amount needed to
pay the amounts above specified, same shall
be deemed exaeas fees, end shall be disposed
of in the manner hereinafter provided.
n. . .
il
,- ‘. “In counties containing as many as thirty-
seven thousand, five hundred and one (37,501) -,
and not more than sixty thotlsand (60,000), or ..
containing a city of wer twenty-five thousand
(25,000) inhabitants, distriat and co8nty offi-
cers named herein shall retain one-third of
such excess fees until such one-third, together
with the amount specified in Article 3883,
amounts to Forty-two He&red end Bifty Dollars
W50). Precinct orricere shall retain one-
third until such one-third,. together with the
amount specified In Article 3883, amounts to
Twenty-two Hundred Dollars (g2200).
“. . .n
Article 3895, Vernon.8 Annotated Texas Civil 8tat-
1’ utes, provides:
Honorable Ralph Rroak, Page 3,
"The Commissioners* Court is hereby de-
barred from allowing compensation for ex-officio
services to county offloials when the compen-
sation end exoess fees which they are allowed
to retain shall reach the maximum provided for
in this chapter. In cases where the compensa-
tion and excess fee6 wbioh the officers are
allowed to retain shall not reach themaximum
provided for in this chapter, the Cosvnissionere*
Court shall allow compensation for 0x 0rri0i0
servioes when, in their judgment, euoh.com-
pensation is neoessery, prwided, such com-
pensation Sorex-offiaio services allowed shall
not inorease the compaosation of the offloial
beyond the maximum of compensation and excess
fees allowed to be retained by him under thir
ohapter. Provided, however, the ex orfioio
herein authorized shall be allowed only after
an opportunity for a publio hearing and only
upon the arrlrmative vote 0s at least three
members of the Commissioners* Court.* 'b
Opinion ho. O-417 of this department holds that
the Commissioners* Court may in their discretion allow an
ex oftiolo salary to oonstebles who do not receive their
mariaurn fees of office, provided that the provisions of
,Artiole 3895, V. A. C. S., are complied with. We enclose
herewith a copy of said opinion for your information.
The case of Anderson County v. Hopkins, 187 S. W.
1019, bald that the Comissionere * court was authorized to
allow colpensetion for ex officio servioes, provided suoh
f compensation, together with the total amount of fees retain-
ed under the statutes did not amount to more than the maxi-
mumand excess fees authorized,and the court further held
that ex offioio fees or salary was not to be oonsidered as
eexoess fees" of whloh the officer could retain only one-
third.
me *first maxi.muuFsalary of a Lubbock County
constable (under Article 9883) Is $1800.00. His "second
or full maximum" salary (under Article 3891) is $3200.00.
It is our opinion that the Commissioners* Court
of Lubbock county may in their discreti~on (if Article 3895,
xionorable WIph Break, Page 4
supre, is complied with) allow en ax o?ffcio salary to the
constable to be paid from the zenera fund of the county,
provided that such salary plue the fees retained by such
officer do not exceed the sum of $2200.00. For exemple,
if the constable earned and collected the sum of $1800.00
in fees the Cmmuissioners * court could allow him an ex
efricio salary of &OO.OO or 1088. Of course, the ccmmls-
sioners* Court is not required to allo*r the constable any
ex officio salaryif it sees fit not to do so.
Vie also enclose herewith a copy of opfnion ho.
O-2082 of this d,epartnent which contains a full discussion
of a related matter. .
Trusting that this satisfactorily answers your in-
quiry, we are
Berytrulyyours
KJF:OO
ENCumJFtE