Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

C..
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
\ i February 14, 1939
A?
Donorable Cao. 2. French
County Attorney
Deinderileld, Texee
Dear Sir:
This Oifice ia
SO, 1939, arking for an opi her a delinquent tax
oontraot madb on Deoember 6, Morris County and
Edgar Eutohings, ie e valfd
t provides for a
1s to termfnate under
its $a=m8 on De her advise that the
oontraot was E era1 and the Comptroller.
You were then oeeded yourself on
iranuary 1, 193 outed the waiver required.
mdseionera, who olgned the
6, and the oounty also hae e
d,oommissioners indloated their
e the same was entered Into,
has been no euoh indication or retifl-
ofiioe, nor has the newly eleoted
his approval.
erioan Jurieprudenoe, 210, the following
. . . The members of’ e board og county
oommdssioners cannot, however, oontraot in referenoe
to matters which are personal to their suooessors.
Thus, R contract which a board.of oounty oommiaalonera
attempts to employ a legal edviaer for a period of
Hon. Ceo. B, Preneh, Pebruary14, 1.939,Page 2
three ye&e, to oomznence three months
" in h he future and
after the time for the eleotion of e person to fill
the vaoanoy oeuaed by the exptration of the tew of
orfice or one x&ber of the board, the tern or exploy-
ment extending over a perioc curing which all the
members of the board as oonstitutedet the time of
the contwot will retire thererroz unless reeleoted,
Is agelnst pubwe polioy . . .*
Thb seema to be the law in Texas, which is expressed
in 11 Tex. JUT., 651, es followa:
'Ordinarily,contracts3ade by e coxmIaalonersL
court may not be repudiatedserely because the pereonnel
or the body has.subsequentlychanged. It is only uh6re
:theemploymeut by a oaamissionsrs~oourtis personal
8nd oonildential,aa in the ease of BP attornay, that
It la held that one co~esloners* court has uo power.
to bind its qluoot%mnwa
This last quotedstiWuwnt’ig~ based on the only~.Texas
aa6e on the -subject the oase'of gulf BitulithZo Co. v. BOueces
Onpaty, 11 2. 8. (24) SC%%,whioh eays~:
.."'
*It 'la only where the employment. by a cozmia&on--’
era* uourt Is .pereonelan+,s.cnfidential, as ,ioX~.tLtb
ease.
0r an dttornay, that It ia xs9Wtbat .one00nmlsrrion6am*``
oourt eeunot bind its eue~es)a‘lY:
The court deo&Mcns ix m@% of the other states that We
heva found hold that one oouule8SoSex~*oourt oaanot bind ita
suooea6or~ on personal contrset8,~.&ffey County v. Wth, SC 1Can.
SW, 32 P. 30 (employmentoi oounty printer); Prsnklln Oouaty
v. Ranok, 9 Ohio C. C. -301(lr.loyam& of courthouse
Ulliken v. Edgar County, .&?!il. 828, 32 8.:%. 493 j","lont'
of poorhouse auperintender,t]; Board of Commissionera1; Taylor,
123 Ind. 148, 23 N. g. e& (mploymmt or,attcirney); end billett
v. Calhoun County, 217 P;Le.667, 117 So. 311 (employ%entof
attorney).
i:e believe +;?& the reasons w‘hich forbid 8 oommisaioncrs~
courtto enter into a contract for the employment of e man in a
persoml end oonflde~,tia& oapaoity extending beyond the tern of
office of the indlri.duelsaomposing such oomaiasionere*oourt epplfes
with peculiar force to the employment of EttorneyS for the OOl-
lection of deli!lqUCjnt
taxes.
lroca.
do. 11.Fmoh, fsbnuryl4, 'lQS9,Page S t
A tax oolleotor-attomoy*rouldneed taot, petlence
an4 dlll.:Onoe,
and e oansi8tslonors'
Oourt a3uld lxwe every
lncsntiveto warita aen tlth those qualltlds. 3``31~ comda-
doers nleht,am5 in aany lnstano~(~, would vlea the situation
13 aa entirelyalrrsr4& light rr0n the lnocmi~ ooz~68loner6.
In skwt, oeoh oo8kai8610neravcourt 0haa be entit1ecto mnke Its
own oontrectstouohbag on th6 aettor.
?W-tlsars``re,th~roaaybea change ln the paraonaelo~
the00ulltp ntt0roef8 0rri04 :a dmh mfm the timy 4i60t4a
oounty ntt?mey would have rl@ts wh%oh oamot be overlooked.
Art;0107s32, Rs7ifmdantutea, prwia06 ror th4 00uey
attorney to r6~rosent tne State sod oouaty ln malts ror dUnqtmt
tax86 and pswitm r-8 ror suoh 6ervloo6. we 40 not b4um that
an oiatgolneoomlaaloner8'oourt,
ping oounty attom
lawxxlsnt3
Ooun````
soy 0r the rl tto``pxysmt tka
mu to oolbot the xmnpbr8~ao thorer0r. Furtho``re, w3 bolhvo
that ondsr 6uoh ohoui~6tabnoo8the ooontp n?xnal~at leeat haye the
ohangeof havln$ a newscanty attora4y who w0til.Cattsad to ouoh
matters r0r tha statutor)-ma pmviaeb ror hihada4 rhLah am
gomrally a great coal les8 than the oaprroi68lonspaZU the C&O,,
leotorcoetornoy.It 16 tma that in thlr lostan& tho~pswant
oounty attorney 1s tb 8~ smnuh+ wa# ooaaty attorney at the
th the COntntOt -8 B&i*, but t?lef-wi pti?~Oiph ia the
-8
Fe do not bdl41vothat the autlon or the tvioiam W&O
#re lattw to takeaKlos as wamla:crloneraIn lxdloatl'ng that they
qqeo~ml tha oontraothas any beuiag on the cueatlon at hand.
suah lnaioaticn on their pert wao aot qt orricfal eat and oould not
bo euoh until t!mg hna qualiflsdttirtheir reapeotlveorflce8.
iIbae%t
any ratlfloatlon0P the4oontrnat.Lt la, t~iaretore,
our oplnlont&t ?sa!!e
lb not a bindInt:
obligationupon nOrTi8
County.
“fOUri VSV tNry