Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

541
“i
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
ATTORNEYGENLRAL
EE;rsa Tleaver H. Bakei
Stats Board of Control
Austin, Texas
Dear Sir:
0r the lunatio
eating our oplnlon in
rerareoce to the hiah read6 tin part
aa r0iloust
Ion or gous Uepart-
Revised Oivil Stetutas of Te(ras,
i publlo pstlenta not lndlgsnt
intainod at the expense8 0f the
nstancc, but in such yya~,the
led to reimbursement .
"Tutute wa8 repealed
in 1925 wlthout a aavlnp: olaure.
23, Aat8 39th Lsgialatura).
542
Honorable Wearer H. Baker, p. 3
“Did the Leglalature thereby extlngulah
debts theretofore owing the State by non-indigent
persona?"
Artfole 138, Colaplete Texaa Statutes, 19&O, reada
88 r0li0w8 t
In the rzrat lnatanoe, but 1n auoh oaaea the a*te
shall be entltlcd- to ralmbunement in the mode’ point-
ed out In Art10188 158 and 159 of this Cbapter,.w
Artlole 138, Complete Texas Statutea, lOB0, pmvlded
ror the iollowlng apaolal laawa among othera, t+wltr
"(1) 16 A* B., the defaadant or unaound mbd?
a * l + *
w(6) 18 defendant po~aeaae& 0r any eatate,
lAU, lr 80, or what doe8 it 8Onalat ~JM its estimated
VSlUa?
*('I) tr the derendant la poaaeaaed 0r 116
eatate, ara there any persona legally llabla ior
hia support? Ii ye&, name thaia.*
Artiole 136, Uomplete Texas Statutea, lQZ0, provided
ia aubatanoe that Y the petient Of the asylum her an eatate
or that there ara persona legally liable for the aupporb and
aalntenanaeor the luaatll, the oounty jud@ may from the to
time, upon request of the auperlntandsnt of the lunafl&$a8~lum
cite the guardian or other persona legally liable for hii aup-
port to appear at some regular term of the oountg oourt for
alrll bualnese to eho* oauae why tha State ahould,not have
judgpent r0r the amaunt dua it r0r the support ana maJntenanoe
or auoh lunatio.. Artlole 159, Qomplete Texas Statutes, LOeD,
provided in subatanoe that the amount of the judgment prorlded
tor ln the 0raoeUlnn artlole should sot exoead the sum or $6.00
per week a& provided that the bertfrloate of the auparint~ndent
or the lunetlo asylum a8 to the amount due ahall be suiflclent
evidence to authorize the oourt to rander jud@nent.
543
mnorable Weaver R. Baker, p. 3
As atated by you;- In Tour opinion request, Artlale
138, aupre, visa repaaled by the Legisleture In 192s. (House
Bill No. 249, Chapter 194, Page 414, ,CeAeral Lawa 39th Legla-
lature or 1986). Tha above mentioned Artiolea 158 and 189 were
also repealed IA the same Act. As provided by the artlolea
above mentioned the lunatie’a eatete or the peraona legal1
liable for his auppmt beoame lagally liable ror the lpuu J 0’8
support and maintenanoe While In the Asylum in a ,aum nat to
exoead tS.00 ,gr weak. T h la emo u nt b a o a med l and o u lng to
the Sta a, Ir flpM$iVe Or whether Or AOt a ud@e~t wea
actually entered am provided for in maid Art 1 de 168.
Artlole III, SeotIon 88 of our Stata CoAatItutIon at
the time that the above artlclea wen repealed In 1988, read
em rollowa :
V!ha Legislature ahall have no power to rebaa+
or extlnguiah, Or tq luthorlse the relaaaln8 Or ax-
tinguiahlng, in whale Or IA part, the indeb$e&.&aaa,
llabllitg or obligation 0r lng .tnoorp,0rat~ion or I
indltidti,. to thlr State, OT to any .oounty. 6s
other munieIpa1 oorporatlon therein."
xr en lndebte!lneae,llablllty or ObligetIOA exIstsa by
virtue or the Stat8 expending mosey ror the support. and aurln-
tenanoe.of the lunatis, at the tlma or the mapeal or Artlole lS6,
aupm ,’ theA the. lAd4bt~Aea8, llablllt~ or obligetlon wag not re- .
1eaeaQ or mtlngulahed hy the Lcgialature ‘In repealing ArtIole
138, broauae It warn InhIbIted iron ao doing by tls ospreea texnm
or 3t4OtiOA 68 0r Artlele 3 or our Constitution.
Arter oareiully examin@ the authorlt~laa, ne are of the
opinion that both an WiAdebtedneaaW and vobligatfonv WithIA the
meaning of the language uaed In Saatlon 58 of ArtIo,le 3 of our
Constitution bed been areated, ‘aa& thet a “lIebllIty* eliate
oannot even be doubtedi IA Sb cOTpu8 JUda,.p. 1050, tha-qq@
liability is derined am r0ii0tw~
*A broad term, of larga and moat Oomprehenaive
algnlfiaanoe, whose meaning haa baen given many tImea
by JudioIal deoiaiona, am well 68 by larIoographera.
Tr.e tea haa been varloualp derlaed am meaning
amenability or reaponalbilitp to law; legal responai-
bility; obligation; reaponaIbIlIty; thst aondltlon 0r
affairs whiah p$vea rise to an obli+tion to 60 a par-
tloular thing to be enrorcea by motion; the oonditlon
of beins aotuallp or potentially subjeot to en obllga-
tion; the oondition of being reaponalble iOr a poaalble
or aotual loss, penalty, evil, expense or burden; the
Honorable %eaver H. Baker, p. 4
oonditlon of one who lo subjeot to a ohar+?e 02 dutJ
whioh mey be jadloially eniomed; the state of being
bounQ or oblleed In law or justloe lie do, pay, or
maka good something; the state of one who Is bc.unQ
in law and justlae tb do something whioh may be en-
foroed by action; the stete of being liable; the
etete or oondltion Of one who 1s under obligation to
do at onoe a,~ at some future time something nhloh may
be enroroed *f aotlon. Ia a reatrlated sense, that
whleh one is under oblkgatlon te pcly to anothen that
for whmiohone is raaponslbla or liabla; that whloh ona
is rrndarobllgafion to pay, or fez rhieh ona.is ,li&ble.
In a broader aen. tllablllt`` means any Obligation
one Is bound In lau or justloa to perrorm, lnaludlag
every kind of obllgatfon, and almoat every ohamotar
0r hasard or nrpoa8iblllty. It i8 genarall~ h&d to
lnolude every klnd of legal o?llgatlon, raaponalbilltp,
or duty, oertalnly al& suoh 8s are meaaund by, a money
raluat 109. LiabiUttridl;aJ ariaa rr0tfi oon,traotsi arpreas
or implied, from duty, Imposed by law, or Judmgwnt oi
the oourt, or In oonaequenoe oi torta oommlttad. Xt
may mean or lnatuds burden@ lmposod by tha oonatltutlon
or statute8. It IIUBY e&fat rlthout the ri@f or fm-
madlata aetlon. A llabllity may ba presently e&O-a-
able by aotlon
ronmoe. By itsor them may be time given for its par-
oontert the term may ba rest~i#sd to
onrar only a llablllty founded upon a oontraot, or
arising out oi the breaoh at the eontraot.
'?A liability mag be absolute or oontinasnt.
‘Liability’ ia not rertrloted to suoh aa are abaolute,
or exolude the idea of oontingeney. fa raot, it Is
more rrequently used in the latter sense that in the
rormer. It may oomprehend tutum eoontln~e~ole#.
While ‘llabSllty* may lnolude dabta or lndebted-
nests, It is not generally limited to euoh tenu. It
is broader. ‘Liability’ Is largely a oorrelatlos tena,
altho&zh, 6rdlnarllp, It meana nn obligation whioh may
or msy not ripen into a debt; and inoludea in addition
existing obllgatlom which mey or may not in the future
eventuate In an indebtednesi. In a apeolal aanso It
la m&to denote lnahoata, fuWre, unasoertalned, 02
lmperi’eot obligrltfons, aa opp6esd to dabta, the as8anoe
of w&oh Is that they PI’+ aaoartalnad and eerteln.”
545
mnorsble iteaTer A. Bnkm, p. 3
**Liability* is a trnu of broader slgnltlcancs
than *debt*. *LlabllityW Is reaponal blllty .* !‘:ords k
Phrases, Vol. 25, p. 41, cltlw Joslln vs. E.J. Car
Spring Co., 30 F.J.L. 141.
n*Llabllfty~ la defined to be a etete of being
bound or obllqed in lnw or justice. It Ltgnlriee that
oondltlon of affairs whloh Rlvem rlae to sn oblige-
tion to do a oertaln partlaulnr t?in*, to be eaforoed
by aotii>n.* words 6. Phrases, Vol. 25, p. 41.
“lie know of no deiinltion of the word ‘liabill;.y*,
either civen In the diotlonarlcs or aa used in the oom-
man speeoh of men, which restrlots it to such as ers ab-
soluts, nr exaludas the ldea of oontlnqenoy. In raot,
it is:more fp$utpfly used In the latter sense than in
the roEnar, Wordr & Phraeas, Vol. 23, p. 43,
altinE Reoonatruo;lon Flnanoe Corporation va . Eoaeett,
Ter. 111 3.K. (2d) 1006.
Blaok’s Law Dictionary deilnes the word llabillty as
r0imO :
*Exposed or subjeot to a given oontlngenoy,
risk, or oaaualty, whiah is more or leas probable.”
In Rapalje*s Law Dlatlonary, It la stated that **lia-
bllltyt ie the oondltlon of bslr@ aotually or potentially
subjeot to an obll:.~atlon; fl usad oither aenerally, as
lnoludlng every kind of obllzatlon, or in the more epeolal
sense to denote lnohoate, future, unaaocrtrrlned, or Im-
perfeot obligations, aa opposed to *debts’, the sassnoe
of w?:loh la that they am asoertalned and certain.*
WObligatlon of an estate of an insane person
to pay for his maintenance in a state hoapltal prior
to dhta 0r Chapter 132 of the Aot or 1935 repealing
the stcte*s rl~-ht of reaovery under prior stntutea
WRBa *&tbillty* rlthin Seotlon l-307 of Burna Ann.
$t.at., provld.lnT tP3t rep**1 of any statute aonnot
extinguish any llablll ty lnourred thcreundar.”
tiords 6. Dhraseo, Vol. 25, p. 9; 1944 CuAuletlre
Annual Focket Pert, citing iltnte 8x rel Mllllcen vs.
Rltter’a Estat~e, Ind., 43 N.F*. (2d) SOS,
546
mnornble Yeaver H. Baker, p. 6
The legislature aannot artinfiulrh or rsleae6 a lia-
bllity to the ‘itate by 1Wpea1i.n~ the statUte Under wr:iah the
llabillty Arose. Steta VS. ?iOMBr 311 & %fInIX& CO. (COm. of
i;pp.) 292, 3.w. 869.
The Court of CIvll ,Awaalr In 1929, after Artiol6 138
bsd been repealed In 1925, end IS affixming the juflgmcntof the
lower aouti In awalrding juE@aent blr the Stata against 0. %.
Lokey, as guardian of the @date of John Sanaom, a lucmtio,
for the lunatia’a rugport and maintanaaoe while In the asylu&
wea the rOilowing8ifpmOaht langua~er
“Article 139, aupfrll, render
‘All Indi@?it publla patient@ ahall
ba kept. and maintained at the expanse of tha
State.’
‘All pub110 patienta not lndlg6ot shall
bo kept aqd ariiatalnedat the expense of the
etote in the fleet instance, but In suah ea#em
t&o state shall be entitled to relmbunement
In the mode point.4 out In artiolsa 158 and
159 or thi8 ohspter.*
“Theme st&uterr ‘1182*in fOrttO nt the time of the
adllis8Ionof the pti8nt aa nn Inmate of the #aid hor-
pita, an2 rfx8d hIi stntua ln rsrarenos to whether ho
was e4mltted aa an lndlqent patI&&, to be kept and
malntalned at the expense 0r the atflte, or as a p*tlent
to be kapt an4 msintainad at the expeaao of the atata in
the ttrat ln3tanee, butths ~etato to be rslmbursab out
or his estate. Undar the undlisputea eridanoe appellant’s
ward, Sansom, had the statur of the latter olaao. fn
raat, artlale 1.30 above quoted haa the rorce and effeet
r;f an express contraat by the state with appsllent, a8
glarbian of t*e patient, th?:t the state will admlt him
in said boepltal a8 a publio patlent, but, for the ax-
Dense Inourrtd of keaplng end sa%nteIning him, the atate
must be reimbursed tram his estate, In no far a0 SUM
my be able to respond thcrat0. As lp p a lla nt*a
ward
)IES been kept end maintained at the axpansr of the 8tata
rmm the &a ha was admitted until the trial of this
case, and there baa beofino reifuburseaentof this ~OS*
penBe, it is olear th.zt an obligation for stioh reimburse-
,ment,, to the extent of the ability OP the war4*a estate
to 1~8ponF. has been &eats4 In feYOr of the state, and
ap;jellant, a8 e;uardIan of such estate, Ie liable then-
Par to the extent thut the aotate Ie aapable of rem
gonomble Kaaver 8. mker, p. 9
“(2) Artlolcs 158 anti 159, rupra, point out
8 pr0Oeaure to eaforoe,
aeeiqiea from time to t&us,
oolleotlon of the debt due the rtate by reason of
this oblinetlon, 88 it am4a, daring the ocuflna-
ment of the patlmt in.8aId horpltal. Thi8 pm-
aedure we not Sollowad by the atate In this suit;
lt balng en aetlon brew,ht: in the ordinary fom to
enforoe pa)nsnt of a debt. I8 the aald rtstutory
procedure axelrulre of 8~ other pmoadura to a8-
tebll8h thl8 debt and lnforoa It8 pa ntP we think
not., The affeof oi the rrtatute8 da8 f”gnatfag raid
who m8 Rot indfg4Rt. Ke theraiora oonoluda that t$
remedy glvm by oald art10148 of the atatute l8 only
oumulatlta or tha ramtdy that tharatofon axlmtad for
the a4t8bllshmmt and aolleo8lonof debta. ThI8 pro-
oiee qua8tIon ba8 been 80 d4oid.d by the Court of 8irfl
Appeala for the lourth Suprame FudIcI81 Dlstrlat.
Luder to. Stet4, 152 3. n. 66#? (FJlQh48i8 OUll3).
It he8 alway bean the polloy of this State, for the
State to be ralmbumad for the earn and m8lntarimee of non-
Indigent patient4 in onr attpta e8ylum8.
Saotlon 94, Artlole 16 of the 6onstltution read8 84
follows:
“It shall ba th duty of the Lepfalatura
to rmrlda for the ourtody and the mlntarmnca of
lnairiant hlutatiO8. at the-axDense of th4 8t8t4,
umler,such regulfltlonr and reetrIotIon8 a8 the
Le``lslaturp my pmmrlba.* bmphn818 ours).
Under the rule of exclu4Ion, it would 4eem thst tha
Oonztltution Itself would Inhibit the Le~Hlature from providing
for t:.e ouetody ani; aPaintananoe ,of,non lumtlaa at the
expense of the State+ Se4 81PO AOtT 5, 185@, p. 119,
2. 1?. 125; hots of Aurfust 16, 1070, p. 139; hate ot l:?~, p. 105;
Aota of 1895, p. 164; ket 6t 1903, p. 110. It will bo observed from
excminins these Acts t r:t the State ha8 alw&ye adhered to
5423
Honorable Weaver R. Eulrrr,p. 6
the polloy of the State'8 nimburrauat for the oar6 and maln-
taaanae of non-lndlg4at kIm8%4 Patii4Rt8~.
In the 88ma Ao ~p8884d in 1925 that l'4pti18dArtlolm
138, 150 and L59; prori8 7 on war mada for the ralmbunamant to
the State for money axpeada4 in the 8upport and Mlntonanoa ot
non-Indigent jMfi4Rt8. (Eou88 El11 Ho. 249, Chapter 194, p.
414, Qenazml Law of S9th Laglrlaturo, 198s). ‘2Waa though the
oon8titutlonal lahibi8loa had not e+i*tod, under e0f ml88 of
8tatUtOTT OOR8t~OtbR~ if 18 dOU?#tifU& ii fh8 1928 AOt ME in-
tand8d and da8lgaed to ltrih &~*a an aeorueilllablllty for the
grr8 and aulnt@maoa OS non-indigoat patlanhr. It 18 true that
thara is an axpre88 mpaal of Artiolar 138, 180 and 159, but it
1e 6180 true th8t in the 8-4 Aot thar8 $8 no departure irim tha
polloy o? reimburaamaat ror the aam ot non-1ndig8at pntlent8,
laQ no Iaafoat1on or an Iataatlon to aboll8h the State'8 Tight
to r4Llbuammoat. Al%10188 lii8,188 8Rd 189 W8m 8Ub8tantially
pm;ytad,. ft MS8ly Ohan@ th8 8tatutOw ZW8Ody fOS OOUW-
It hr gong been 8attlod tn thir State, 88 roll a8 in
other jUd8diOtiOM, that it dOa ROt I'8qUira- UI eZJw888 ra+iryl
olau8e to pnreab fh4 de8truotlon oi right8 l ri8ting tanlot former
ltatuta8. fr the lntentloa,topra8ax7e``ald oontlnao 8uoh right8
18 ole8rly apparent, It will be 08rrl8d into lfte8$ Go .r la ~y8.
Sawell 91 Ind. Sl6. ?U~lOrtoR f8. spSiR$ (SUP. Cb.) 8 k18. 667..
The Suprama Court of Indlut* In 104S. in the oaso of
Stat0 V8. Bitter'8 %5t4tO, do@#.,t. ted) 99s. UUdOr til8,88lE*
f8ot 8itUatiOE ar pruentad to u8, =a with a np88led 8t8tUt8
whioh provided for nirbtmamn% to the Skta tma the lua~tio'8
aatato, held that the obllgatloa of the 48tata to relmburro the
State wa8 a *llabIllty", and that the rapaal themof did not ox-
tilrgaish8uoh llabIlIty.
Tho abwo aathoritla laod tm fo tha Iaa8oap8bla 001~
olwlon that the rapsaling of said Artlola lg8, 158 and 15s
did not and oould not wtingui8h tha liabflftia8 tharatofora
onlag the State by non-idllgant pabllo patienti by re88oa of
their rupport and acrlatonanoewhile In the ltumtlo e8ylum and
that said Indebtadne88 or llablllty 18 ruoh an~obllgatloa due
the State aa may be enroraaa in any oourt of oompatsnt $Uri8biO-
tioa.
In arriving at the above oonelu8ioa, we wera not uaaind-
549
ponorabl,e i:n~var H. Baker, p. 9
ful of the dealslon of the Court of Cfrll Appeal8 In ttk6 oeea
of M~lsamanvs. State, 94 S. iY. (2d), Pi65 in whloh the Supreme
cmrt refused a nrlt of error. It 18 true that in thlr.oase,
under an exaat taot sltustlon aa wa hare now undtr discusd,on,
the overt held that tt!e State of Texas was not entitled to re-
aover asalnst i7. R. ~Nlraman; guardian Sf the eatato of Charles
c. Allen, non oompos mentIm, for money expended for the oare and
supj?ort of aaid lunstic while cooflned in the arylum b&on, the
repeal of said f~rtlclea 1X, 168 and 169. The oourt beaed It.8
holding upon the ground that the Stete’e, ri&t to relmbbanamant
did not erlmt nnder the eomm~n lew and only erlatod by virtue
of Art1010 138, whloh ha4 been repealed. M examined' the epplloa-
tlon for m writ of error In t&l8 oeso to the Supreme dourt and
find that the quartion of the right OS the Le&leture to ex-
tingulrh llebllltler W the .5tate, e8 Inhlblt~d by seld Seotl.on53
or Artitle B O? cur COnstltutlOn, wa8 not Irli~I. If this MO-
tion of our f.?omtlfatlctn had been brought to the oourt~s etten-
tion, we are flXV&aYof t&a oplnlon that the aouxt would have
afflxlaed the ud ent of the lower oourt in ewardin
favor of the L!tag. ft la the rule in tM8 atats t%iY2F ln
elslon la not to be aonsltlered @ pxwoedent, where th ooart in
Mndedng Its oplnfon did 80 without roferanee to, or donoldsra-
tlon or, a statute ot aonatitutlonel pzvvieion ln queatlon,
*Cases deolded without refarenoe to, or &on-
slderetlon of statute, were not *preaedenta* on eon-
rtruotlon or etetute rlthln rule OS atera 6eoIelr
so am to repulm that tkey bo iollore4 ontll over-
ruled." Y+ord8& Phrasea, Pal. 33, p. 248. Qltlry
Astne Inoaranae Compeaj.v~. QoamnBor, 153 30. 899,
149 Mlue. B49.
‘*Preodentst are .deoirloaa of court.8 of
last raaort upon the substentlte lfirues before tha
oaurt whioh am oonaidered by the court ard de-
cided by the oourt aa auoh, enC Immter~el 'duoxlp-
tires rhlah do not lifoot the question aomIdem4,
or the result raaohed, here no foroe aa tpreaedenta.tw
Words E Phraees Vol. 35, p. E40 oitlng Warren v8.
stf3te; 94 3.“. 1,2.81 430, 130 Tex. Crlm. Rep. 446.
*-.:htre a oertsln point af law is not bmuKht to
t”,e view of thb oourt ln detennlnlnq a oeuse, tha
550
$onoreble Maver H. Baker, p. 10
deoloion 1s not (1 prcoedent, celling for the semo
“A ‘precedent’ means that a prlnclple of
law aotuelly presented to e oourt or authority
tor oonslleratlon en4 deteaalnetlon her, eiter
due concIderat.lon,been deolrred to 8ervo ee e
rule for future guldanoe In the eeme or enel-
ogoue oasec, but mettere whioh mon1.y lurk In
the reoord end are not dlreotly edvenced or
expreeely tlecldedlre not preoedente.” Uorda &
I’hreese,Vol. 33 p. 43, 1044 Cumuletlre Anuael
Fookot Part, cl&q ?tmplrcSquaxr Realty Ce. t8.
Chase rPatlone1Bank or City OS Bet York, 43 If.I.
3. (226)490.
rk in the reoor4,
and ere neither brou@the lttentlon
to of thr
oouxt nor Nhd upon, should not bo oansidered es
re;iFebzcn eo deolded es to oonstltute prs-
Sohn71 vo. Robertson, 111 Pod. 84, 988.
Zargll& w. Oleery, D.C. lJa998., 4S F. Supp. 781.
4hls Klrcmen ceme only held that the rI&ht oi the State
to relmbursemsnt In euch ceeee did not eslet et common lew en4
expreeely refnlned from peesing upon the queetlon of whethex tho
rtatutory rcmcdy was excluelre. Both the Laden and Lckey oerea,
~pra, expressly held that the etatutotory remedy need not be pur-
rued an% t2at the State would have the right to $0 into any oourt
OS aompetent jurledlotlon and proeeoute e rult ee for debt.
Trusting that the above end forcgolw fully enswcrc your
Inquiry, we are
vary tzuuly poun
A’TTOIQJFX
UIBWRAL OF TEXAS
W. V. .tippert
Aealstent