Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Chas. F. Hemphlll
    County Auditor
    upton county
    Rankin, Texas
    Dear Sir:                            Opinion NO. O-4868
    Re: Was the appointment
    of the Justlce of the
    Peace legal and is he
    entitled to his salary
    under the facts stated?
    Your letter of September 29, 1942, requesting the opinion
    of this department on the above stated question reads in part as
    follows:
    "On September 4th 1942 the Commissioners
    Court of this County met in Special Session
    without having notified CommissionerJ.O.
    Currle, whereas on August 21, 1941, at a
    Special Meeting of Commissloners~Court of
    Upton County, Texas, at which meeting those
    present were the County Judge, the four
    County Commissioners,the Sheriff, and the
    County Clerk, and at which meeting the fol-
    lowing motion was passed, adopted and made
    a part of the Commissioners'Court Records
    of IJpton.County,to wit:
    "tMotlon by CommissionerWheeler, second-
    ed by CommissionerYates that no more Special
    Sessions of the Commissioners'Court be called
    unless In case of an emergency. That should an
    emergency arise all members of the Court be not-
    ified of such attention to call such special
    Session and advised of the purpose thereof.
    "'All Commissionersvoting Aye.'
    "In the Special Session above mentioned
    which was held on September 4, 1942 the Commls-
    Honorable Chas. F. Hemphill, Page 2, No. O-4868
    sloners' Court appointed Mr. Maburn L. Harris
    to fulfill an unexpired term as Justice of the
    Peace at a salary of $100.00 per month.
    "As County Auditor, I have withheld pay-
    ment of Maburn L. Harris' salary due to the fact
    that the Special Session at which he was ap-
    polnted was not lawfully and legally held unaer
    the Statutes and the Special Agreement had by
    and between this ssme group of County Officials
    and so recorded in their minutes.
    "I am convinced that there was a lawful
    quorum of the Court present and the only ques-
    tion as to the legality of the appointment is
    whether or notthe above mentioned agreement Is
    of binding consequencein this or any other in-
    stance, and whether I am within y just rights
    in withholding this man's salary.
    In your letter of November 16, 1942, supplementing
    the above mentioned letter, you state In part:
    "I wish-,toadvise that the captioned re-
    ouest was merely for an opinion regardinga
    lawful quorum for the Commissioners'Court of
    this County due to the fact that this particular
    Court had at a prior meeting recorded in the
    Commissioners'Court Minutes an agreement whereby
    they would not hold a special session unless all
    Commissionershad been duly notified of such special
    session. I think the Statutes are clear concerning
    a legal quorum, but the question is simply whether
    or not such minute of the Court Is of any value on
    the records. You request a reason why one of the
    Commissionerswas not notified of the special ses-
    sion, I am forced to answer that I do not know.
    There Is possibly no reason at all.
    "I wish to advise further that all County
    Officials and all precinct Officials In this
    County are being paid on an annual salary basis
    for the calendar year of 1942, and the salary to
    be paid to the newly appointed Justice of the
    Peace Is the same as that paid to the deceased
    officer."
    Article 2343, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes pro-
    vides:
    "Any three members of the said court, ln-
    oludlng the county judge, shall constitutea quorum
    .
    Honorable Chas. E. Hemphill, Page 3, No. O-4868
    for the transactionof any business, except
    that of levying a county tax.”
    Article 2342, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes reads as
    follows:
    “The several commissioners,together with
    the county judge, shall compose the 'Commls-
    sioners Court’, and the county judge, when pre-
    sent, shall be the presiding officer of said
    court.”
    Article 2348, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes pro-
    vides:
    “The regular terms of the commissioners
    court shall be commenced and be held at,the
    court house on the second Monday of each mqnth
    throughoutthe year and may continue In sess$on
    one week; provided the court need not hold&re
    than one session:eachquarter If the business of
    the court does not demand a session. Any session
    may adjourn at any time the business of the ‘court
    is disposed of..Special terms may be called by the
    county judge or three of the commissioners,and
    may continue in session until the business Is
    completed.”
    ..,      Article 2355, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes pro-
    vides in part:
    “The Court shall have power to fill va-
    cancies in the office of: ..... Justices of the
    Peace .... Such vacancies shall be filled by a
    majority vote of the members of said Court, pres-
    ent and voting, and the person chosen shall hold
    office until the next general election.”
    Under the facts stated, all members of the commlsslonersl
    court were present except one county commissionerwhen the justice
    of the peace wae appointed by said court at Its special meeting.
    However, one of the co,mnissionershad no notice of the special
    meeting of the oommlssloners1 court when the court appointed the
    justice of the peace. Flotwithstandingthe order of the commisslon-
    era’ court requiring that all the members thereof be notified of
    any or all special sessions of the court, It is our opinion that
    the action of the commissioners1 court at a special meeting with-
    out notice to all the members thereof is void.
    It is stated in Corpus Jurls., Volume 46, page 1035:
    Honorable Chas. E. Hemphill, Page 4, No. O-4868
    "In no Casey, in the absence of express
    statutory provision to the contrary, can the
    action of a majority be regarded as valid, un-
    less all are present or have been notified,
    although It has been held that, until the con-
    trary has been shown, it will be presumed that
    all were present and participatedin the pre-
    ceedlng or had notice. Where all the members
    of a board are present and participateIn a
    meeting without objection, it Is Immaterial
    that no notice of the meeting was given."
    In the case of Webster vs. Texas & Pacific Motor Trans-
    port Company, et al., decided November 11, 1942 (Supreme Court.of
    Texas, not yet reported), it Is stated:
    "It Is a well established rule in this
    State, as well as in other States, that where
    the Legislature has committed a matter to a
    board, bureau, or commission,or other admin-
    istrative agency, such board, bureau, or com-
    mission   must act thereon a8 a body at a stat d
    meeting,'or -oneproperly called, and of whicz
    all the members of such board have notice, Or
    of which they are given an opportunityto at-
    tend. Consent or acquiescenceof, or agreement
    by ,theIndividualmembers actlng sepamtely.,
    and not as a body, or by a number of the mem-
    bers less than the whole acting collectively
    at an unscheduledmeeting without notice or
    opportunityof the other members to attend,
    is not sufficient.34 Tex. Jur.457; 51 C.J.
    62; State v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co.(N.D.),
    1821v.w.539. McNolty v. Board of School Dlr-
    ectors (Wi.s.j,  
    78 N.W. 439
    ; People v. Whltrldge,
    
    129 N.Y.S. 295
    ; city of Floydada v. Gillam
    (Tex. clv.   App.), 11 S.W. (2d) 761; King v.
    Guerra (Tex. Civ~.App.)~,1 S.W. (2d) 373; Schwan-
    beck v. People ex rel. Mith (Colo.) 
    24 P. 575
    ;
    School District Ifo. 39,~Pattowetoml.e County v.
    v. Shelton (Okla.), 
    109 P. 67
    ; Murphy v. City of
    Albina (Ore.), 
    29 P. 353
    ; Mason v. Directors of
    Poor for Erie County (Pa.), 
    126 Pa. 445
    ; Thompson
    v. West (Neb.), 
    82 N.W. 13
    ; First National Bank
    of Marlin v. Dupuy (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S.W. (2d)
    238;.McAlisterv. City of Frost (Tex. Clv. App.),
    131 S.W. (2d) 975."
    Honorable Chas. E. Hemphill, Page 5, NO. o-G68
    Therefore, in view of the foregoing authorities,as
    above stated, It Is our opinion that the act of the commissioners1
    court at a special meeting appointing the justice of the peace with-
    out notice to all the members of the commIssIonera court is void.
    Article 6828, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes reads:
    @'Itshall be unlawful for any officer or court
    of this State, or of any municipal division thereof, :-
    to allow, audit, pay or order to be paid, the claim
    of any person for salary, compensation,fees, per- ;
    quisites, emoluments or services, as an officer of
    the State or of any municipal division thereof, ex-
    cept to such person as has'been duly elected such of;
    fleer by the qualified voters of this State, and
    whose election has been ascertainedand certified or
    declared in the manner required by law, or who has
    been appointed such officer by the lawful appointing
    power under the Constitutionand laws of this State,
    or who has been adjudged entitled thereto by a State
    court of competent jurisdiction,and has qualified
    as such officer in accordance with the law. Any per-
    son not so elected, appointed and qualified shall
    not be entitled to receive pay for services as such
    ~offlcer,or to exercise the powers or jurisdiction
    of such officer. The official acts of any person
    claiming a right to exercise such power or jurls-
    diction contrary to the provisions of this law
    shall be void."
    It will be noted that under the provisions of the fore-
    going statute that any person who has not been duly elected an officer
    by the qualified voters of this State and whose election has been as-
    certainedand certified or declared In the manner required by law,
    or who has been appointed such officer by the lawful appointing power
    Iunderthe Constitutionand laws of the State, or who has been adjudged
    entitled thereto by a State court of competent j,urisdlction,and as
    qualified as such officer In accordancewith law is entitled to claim
    or he paid any salary, compensation,fees, perquisites,emoluments or
    services,as an officer of the state or of any municipal division there-
    of. It will be further noted that any person not so elected, appointed,
    and q'halified'shallnot be entitled to receive pay for services as such
    officer, or to exercise the powers or jurisdictionof such officer. There-
    fore, as above stated, It is our opinion that the appointment of the jus-
    tice of the peace Is void and he is not legally entitled to his salary
    as such officer.
    ‘-.
    .
    Honorable Chas. E. Hemphill, Page 6, No. 0-4868
    Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inqulry;.we
    are
    Yours very truly
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    APPROVED DEC. 9, 1942                       By /II/Ax-dellWllllfuus
    Ardell Willlama
    GERALDC.MANN                                Aaslstaat
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    APPROVED
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    By /ii/BWB, CHAIRMAN
    AW:ff:bk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-4868

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1942

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017