Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
County Traaeurar to
oifiaor for allegad
asfars of certain
P you are quits Lengthy, and,for
opinion wo take the liberty to wuinariz8
rlor to 1931 the v0te.m of.Sha&fsl-
horieed a oouuty wide bsnd ieeue. of
c~ about the ma8 tba the voter8 0r
Road DistiriotNo.:.?oi.sald oounty authorlmd a baad
issue of &3OO,OOQ.-Thla iaaneyVW rot& ior tha pur-
pose of building rosds, apparentlyunder the provi-
sions ai Artiole 3, Sec. 52 of the Constitutionof
Texas. It appear8 agreed that a?,terthe roads wars
oompleted,thers~were several thousand dollars bal-
anoa In aaoh oi suoh bond iunda. Part o? this mons~
was by order o? the oourt, on July 25, 1935, trdasfer-
red from ShaaokelfordCounty Bond Fund to tha General
Fund of the county and part from Road District Ro. 2
Fund to thr:Road and Bridge Pund. An amount equal to
Hon. Thomas L. Bfantoa, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Pa@ 2
.., :' .
tha latter funds was on Augmt 7, 1957, ordered
transrarradto'th&..Cansral PuI1?'fiaimthe $Qad.end
Bridge FuudIL 4t-l-, ti#.af saahof those:trena-
fen,~.tlia~naraf..I'u+~r~r,.ererdrawn.
.
Thera.reenn,mme 4lte on tha .faatabsfwem your
stat&nta.,* yooor..l~it~r;Md,t``,teottals 0r ``farbrs ot
. the Commisaitjaar8t’
Ceiiii$``quo~.bj~pibuas to :rhetherthe bonds
and laterest, and obll&ions Sor whloh the bonds were ori&
nzlly issued had been fully paid off .aad eatlafied atthe tiw
of said transfers. we are no+ln posi-
the puqoae of this
.
, I.. 1 _ -.- !
-(lj 'gas'tho;tisdsieE‘
of July 2g,.iQSa,'&& &h&k-
_: elrord Coanty B~uX~.`` to..the.*oe~r,rtl
Fund* a legsl
trapeber``' .: . .. ; _
.
"'(3).Z's8the.~&&a;bi Aqzust 7, 19&:&a 'Road
and Bridge aund* to'.* *GeneraJ Fund' a legal.tramfer?
V'.._ .
"(4)' If. abbd’tr&fk8 .+.. heli i.U.egel, would,
'th~,CbuntyTraaaorgi~.ha~i.~thority to ttisfer;~wlthout
'edorder of..the'G~js$.otim!, C&t, an:a#l&.e)-etiaal to l
that hbretoibrs transfirridby the ordgr:Oz.the oourt
rrom *Road Dlstriof..I?b;.8XII&*.to the 'Geimral Fund'
from saW?Gbneral hind“ to 'Slnkibp IkId'No.2; Road
Distrlot Wo.2")
ot the Commissionoia~.Court'hsio the autheritf.tetreia- I?
iar.irom the *GeneralRud! to 'Sluk3ng Pupd @6.Sc.~
amout equsl to.thr~amount'~eratoion transfarrsdby the
order of the Coart rrom tha lShaokeltordCoanty Bond
Fund' to the 'CeaeralW$!?.. .~
"(6) Is there &y ha!i.&al-llebiliy for-t&m trans-
fers: (a) eonthe part of'the'count.Judge, (b) on the part
of the Cougty Cqnmissipner~.qnd:(cr on,ths part QS ,th@
County Treasuhir? " .,
Hon. &onms*L. Blanton, Jr., Feb. 4, 193e, Page 3
:
;,.
"(7) Ia
IS thue..in
thue..Fn yaur~oplnlon,01~11 liability for these ..:J
transfers: (a) on Jud e, (b) on
on the part of the County Judge.
the
the part ~of
~of-ths
ths County
County~Commlsalone.rs,
Commlsalone,rs,and
ahd (o
(oJ
k on the c
part .orthe County~Troesurer? ,*-.
,:-
: .. I. ~.
,."(8)'In the evsnt.tqe Oolamissioaars* Oour``does not pass
ti ordeP transferilngthd .,?uads,baok to.ths pmpcir funda,
~. what;ef$ionwould.you advise trlisorriot to taka?"
.
Wlt&rsferimoe to the first three questions we hold all
transrsre of 'suchfunds tu have b&m an Illegal dive&Ion thereor.
Wecarefully studied the opinion heretofore rendered on Felhsry
7, 1938, by Jamee M..Wo~; then Assistant XttOrney General to
Eon; -Si C. Coffec,;~and ~agrse'thireirlth. Other authoritiesthan
the ~oaae'ot~Carrol1T; ?iil?liqsi,%!Ob S.Ua 5C4, olted-by Hr. Neff,
whlaH ~6 think in line thsrewlth: If Ter. Jur. 609, Sea. 78; I
Robblns vs..LQnestone County, 260 SW. 915, p. 919; Comnl3alonerP~
Court v. Burk, 262 S.Wi 94 '(CIT.App., writ rsZused);~Sandero
Y. Looney, 225.S.W. 28O;~%illaso'vlOomnle3lonera~Courtof Madi-
. son County, 281 S;Wi‘~.503 -(Qlv.App. reversed on other grounds),
From these iuthorities'weoolicltidr the oorreot statementof the
law tb be that(constltut$oii~l l'udd~smeiy-notbe tiansferredfrom
one !'undto enother; may,not be diverted; and Commlsslonerel
Courts have no power expend for one'purposetax modey raised
ostensibly ror In thls oonneotlon,w point out that
the.oplnlonof July 8 1935, written by Aasls~tant Attorney
General Vlotor'W. Bouliln tio~Hodorable 9. C. Ooffee, 8oema to
overrule the opinion 0: former Assistant Attorney.GensralDavis,
dated 2daroh.lS;1935.~ ,Weti@!ttlon thego opinions beeaueo'they are
set out In--y&rbrlejfand-]sbemto~hs?r been the+iiis.'otthe
Coml3a~oner3~'order9~al3a``3~t~im~ In your btilef. Uopfes'of
all three-op$nlonsarb'a@pefitted~hetisto. We alti append a copy
or an bpl~loh:~tten~b¶aro~ 17;~.1937,by Asalatant Attorney
General Vlotor VI.Boqldlq;to,Bo~orable.S,
‘.. C. ,S"ith,~
Countq Attorney,
Meridian, Texas. '.
'. ..:'., I
Answering your f+rb& qudbtlon'%'%ve oire?ully,not ed
the pmvlalona of Title 36, R.C.S;;,rslatlngto,tee County
Treasurer. Artlole 1709 dire&s the Treasurer to 'pay~aniapply. 1
'lEOd8~3"es requlred'byliri"but.further "in suoh m&nieraa %hs- L
oommlssloners~court of his7,county
.'y;" ;.,,. may,~,
..I rewire ard dlreetm,
.., ~;.
Artlole 1713 %a'# iollawet'.qae County~Trsasurer *
shall not pay any money'6utor ~the county treehry emiept In pur-
auanoe.or a aertlflcatd``or warrant from 80s~ of~loer aathorized
by law ta issue the sam(,;and if suoh treasurer shall have any
doubt
a,--*-of_-the legality oriproprlety
``....~._ . . . . of'any
a order, deoree,
_- oertl-
Hon. Thomas& Elanton, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Pnge 4
, "._' :._ 7 : ..I
the same. but shall make report thereof to the aommlssloners~
Court for their cona,Ideratlonand direotlon."
._. - -:; ?J. _:. 'in
JZT.5.
The County Treasurer la a oonstltutlonalofficer, and
the Legislaturehae.+he $ouierto prescribe his dutlas. (Const. ,
Art. 16, Seo, ~444);..
G:e.i;ttiRo authorityYe *raaaUer of funds
by. the'ttia+er'on-Me Wu:lMlinstl~n, but the statutes qbbove
quQt@ ?a.pn,``~cZ?a,~ff-``diosts~ri:d~ty.``.tbbpmm$eea. !&are-
``;:``e'hol&tke~anMM& ~t%ens Xo%.'4'?8@ e:e bo.In
thu'negatlve.
~estg~-``;~:.~h~.~i:an``rsa'thsm is.ao erlxlnal
lle~ll$~ cnithe pa& oi~eEthor``t,theorilalrsmaattoned. No
officer, any'more than a private Individual,may be punished for
any aof or omIialon es a penal offense, unles? the aame Is ex-
pressly defined ilnd%SieY#tuialt$
afflxed.by the wrlttmn law. 9ee
P. C. (1925y~.Pxt.3; Stota Ti -abury, 37 Tex, ,159. In the
Xtngsbury case iihew'w6e.n~‘8tatutu making.tha:aat.ofthe County
Court In unlawful19 appmrSng an .aaoouutapainstcthsooun%g a
penal orrense. See‘34~Ter; 'Jur:'479. See also opintorbonrpotlon
for rehearing in oase"ef..&op8r:v.State, 279 9. W. 449.
The oorreat iGs& to:your questi& Ho. fl h& @en
mnoh conokn. 'F&m a'~d~ti,~‘axealnation oi.your sntira.brlef,
however, snd the wo&!Uati fast situation of t&e-matter.Mfore
us, ws,havs conoluded-ther+eheuldbe no-olvl.LUabilitp of qny
of tha offlaers mentioned by You.
iYeare of opinion the odunty jud@ amX.~ommlasIonera,
In passing the orders mentioneda$ove, and set out fully In your
Inquiry,were aotlng In a tldla$al.oapaoi%y oKu%‘lWUt In a
quasi-judicialoapaolty. 3i 80, the respootlvu member8 of the
oourt ace not reaponslblefor olvll bamap?ta. In thlw:oonnectlon,
your attention Is called to the.oaae ot.Coma?@e.:Co~ty.v,.Burks,
166 3. ';:.
470 (CIv. App. writ r&fused). @ that ease tEfCoz-
mlsaloners court sold oertaln aohool lti%&s*m
vest!ng the proceeds of tb? male In seau~ltlesmxU&ed by
the Constltutlon,from the to tlme,dlvertedportions thereof
and appropriatedthe snme to the general purpoees of the oounty.
The court, ln a well written opinion, held the .offloersacted
In pood faith In a judlclal or quasi-judicialaapaolty, and were
therefore not personally: liable. The oounty, aa such, was held
..-
._ :
Hon. Themes L. Blenton, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Page 6
:.
'-:;
liable to the school fund and judgment entered accordingly.
Lee in addition to the Commahe County Case, eupra,-22 R. C. I.
p. 478, Seo. 152; p. 484, Sec. 162; 46 C. J. 1042; 34 Tex. Jur.
p. 466, et seq.; Callaway V. Sheppard, 89 S. :7.(2) 417 (Clv.
APP. writ dismissed);MoDonald t. Farmer, 56 S. 'a.555 (Clv.
App.); Creswell Ranoh & Cattle Co. v. Roberts County, 278 S. Y.
737 (~civ.f4pp.writ rerused).
Under authority of the oase of McDonald v. Famer,
supra, we think your question is.apeolfioallyanswered as to
the County Treasurer. The reoetitease of Hoffman Y. Davis, .
100 S. W. (2d) 94, (Corm. App.) f’ull``disqmsei the rlehts and
duties or oounty tresstiersand i8LrsspectfUllyrefe,yredto
therefor. .r-.. : '!
.. -
w vlrtub oi'the-dutdbrltlee.oited, question'&. 7
should be answemed In the negative ae to all offiodrs there
.jnqulredabout. .- '
As to your duty-in the premises, as refloated by
your question-No.8, we suggest;youpefer the matter to the
County Treasurer with the advfoe.that ho formally request the
OomnissionerslCourt to pass an order transferring the eqds
in controversyto.the prop.er8fnkln``fundo. If tha‘Cina-
missioners Court ehotild thsn refuse to do so, underthe BU-
thoritp of Eoffimn v..Davls,:+~pka,there appears no doubt of.
the right and dutfof the treqsqr to bring en aotion. The
Court In that.oaae did not 'tiadW,upon.the question .&fwhether
the County Attorney rould‘have``.aancU5rlngrlgh$:but the pro-
visIona or ~rt.339, R. 0. s;.would sesai%cibestow ib: 4
*. .~\. ...-f( ,_._ s
*._
YourB.ver$ truly
'. :. ::
..' .o;.I%&is
Alsi*tant
Bk':ET
XTTO.3NZYC3XXRAL OF TEXAS