Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTlp4
Honorable 0. A. Neal
County Auditor
El1la COunty
Waxahaohie, Texae
Ret Allowance
date of Ootober 83,
questions:
bounty, the shsrirrfs
department Is till esed by the county.
ef the oplnlon that
era, and the sheriff
pend oonsiderable
e rcr anothsr.
8s to repair, or exohange for
d buy one and oharge the
e for the use of it, what
matter? Would the oounty
med by ths Comptroller*s Offioe that the
a ocmpensated on an annual ealary basis.
Or Artiols 3899, VeTnOn’s Annotated Cfvil
, reeds In part as r0liopp8:
“The Commissioners Court of .the oounty or the Sherlff~s
resldenoe may, upon the written and sworn applioation of
euoh ofrloer stating the neoesslty therefor, allow one or
mOre automobiles to be use4.b the SheriiY’ in~ttu, discharge
OS Orfiolal business, which, 9 f purohased‘& the count7
shall be bought, in the nianner presoribed $-y law for the
purohase bt supplies end paid for. out of the CIe,neral find
of the oounty and they shall be reported and paid In the
same manner as herein provided for other expenses.
Honorable 0. A. Neal- Mqe 2
nWhe,re the automobile or automobiles are owned by the
Sherirt or his Deputies, they shall be allowed four (4#)
cents for eaoh mile traveled in the disoharge of offlola
business, whloh sum shall cover all expenses of tha maln-
tenanoe, ~depreoiatlon and operation of suoh automobile.
Suoh mileage shall be reported end paid In the same manner
presoribed for other allowable expenses under %he provisions
0r this seotlon. No automobile shall be allowed ‘for any
Deputy Sheriff eroept those regularly employed in’ outside
work. It shall be the diity of then County Auditor, ir eny,
otherwise the Commissioners’ Court, to &eok the speedometer
reading of each of said automobiles, owned by the oounty
onoe eaoh month end to keep e publio reoord thereof; no
automobile owned by the county shall be used for any private
purpose .”
In the light of that poriion of Seotlon b of’ Artiole
3899 of Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, whloh provides:
“. . . The Commissioners’ Court of the County oi the
Sheriff’s resldenoe mn~ upon the written end sworn epplloe-
tlon of suoh orfloer, stating the neoesslty therefor, allow
one or more eutomoblles to be ilsed~ bfr the Sheriff in the
disoharge or oftiolel business. . . .*
It is the opinion of this Department end you may be so
advised that the statute vests with the Cormeisaioners’ Court the
right end duty, in aoting upon the written end sworn epplloet ion
of tba sherirr, to eieroise its administrative dlsoretion es to
the necessity for snoh expenditure end euoh body may or may not
allow., in pursuenoe of its delegated duties, one or more automo-
M;;isto be use! by the Sherifr in the disoharge or his orrloial
It aooordinglJr follows, that in the event that the
Commlailoners* ,Court, 52 the exerolse of its dlaoretion, round
that there~ wee _8 nsoessl$y f’or the use of only ‘two automobiles
by ths Sharlffts Department of Ellis County that said Commissionera’
Court would not be, as a matter of law, obligated to allow or
approve additional expenditures for the use of other end additional
automobiles by the Sheriff of said County in the disoherge of his
offlolal duties.
Truating,thet this will satisfactorily enswer your
question, we remain
Yours very truly
APPROVEDDEC.4, 1939
(8) Gerald 0. Mann ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
ATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS APFRCWED
opinion oommitte
EC:AMIK BY -By BWB
Edger Cele ohairman
Assistant .’