Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Bonorablo E. P. cfennin,ls county Auditor Vlth ea lhdepeodent school district could cot exaead 155, 3ad that the contract Involved In tbat~ case YES, for thst rG33On, void. Ye c on 3t ru e Xrtlclc 73350. Ver- nohOo Civil ritzttute3, ln the lirr.ht cf' the ebove Gplzion, ~3 llaj.tleg ths a.2sunt pepable to sn attorney under euch $onornbIe E. P. Iennln~s, page 2 t contract with sn indspendont school district to a noxi- mm of lS$ of each lndlvldual tnx,penolty and Interest eollectlon. In construlq? contracts courts ~111 read exlst- 1nG laws Into the soze unless j.t clerrly opprore that the contrnry wes lntcoded by the pnrtles. Gulf Product Ion Cozpnny v. Cruse, 271 S. K;, et?/3 by the CO.&ssiOn Oft Ap- pes1s ; XTrlnltg Portlard Ccwnt Co. v. Lion 9ondlr,: md Curaty Co.-ipany, 229 S. ?. @3, by the Comlsslon of Ap- pesla; 10 Texas JurlSpIUd6nCe 316. Fran your letter v:e are sssumlng thet there Is no clear provision in the contract ttit. ~oro than l$ will bo PaId when the penalties .znd Inkrest exceed thst araount. In favor of the validity of the eontrect, there- fore, we bolleve ttet the lir;\ltcrtion of 155 will bo ready Into the contract in questioo. Our answer to your question Is thot the attorney should bc paid 155 of the exeunt of the collection in the case to which you refsr. Yours very truly Glenn R. Lewis Assistsfit