Case Information
*1 _3r’
0: _ : ‘...:.&/....’
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonolrble LOPOT L. ltoon county Attommy
mustar! county
Croakott, Toxm
vhiah 18 paid for by llrted a8 8 duty ot e 3891, Vernon'r Annotated Cl011 Stututer, 9a part, 88 r0iiov8:
provider, looted . . . during a4 flrasl par in allce88 of I [*] . . All aurront fee8 emned and aol- . the maximum and @foe88 alloved br thir Aot, . . .
ohallbr paid into the Countr Fr.ar~. . . .
gonomblo Iaroy L. Moon, Page 2
The aOmpenMtiOn limitation8 ~daarimumr
h.min fired Oh& al80 Epplf t0 811 fO.8 and ooqmn8atiOn VhlitOO@VOr 0OllOat.d by raid
offloem ln their offla~l aapaalty, vhethor aaoountablo 88 f@OO Of Offi under thr ~lW8~~t l&v, and 84 lav general o r l peolal, to the oontrary lo hamby upra88ly rupoalod. The only kind and ahamoter of aanpenratlon exempt fran the provlrlonr of thl8 Aat rhnll be ro-
vardr morlved by shrrirro . . . and money8 received by County Judge8 and JU8tiCe8 of the Peaoe ror prrformlng marrlag* oemmonle8, vhloh OUIDO Oha not be raaountablo for . . . 88 fee0 of offiaer’
Seatlon 61, Artlole 16, Conotltutlon of Toxar pro- Vid.8, in ptbrt, a8 follovs:
I . All aounty offlaorr la aountler havlng i &pulatlo* of 20,000 or mom, , . .
#hall be oarPpsn8atsd on a salary baalo, . . . all foes earned by . . , county . . . offloerr shall be paid Into the oounty treasury . . .
vhen oollrcted.”
In pumuanoe o? the foregoing aonrtlti tlonal mandate, Section 1, Art1010 39120, Vernon'8 Annotated Clvll Statutea, that no county shall pay to any aouM.y offloer In a provider oounty having 6 population of 20,000 or mom, a4 fee or oom- mission for a4 remrice performed a8 ruoh l ffiCer8.
Seatlon 6, Artlolr 39120, provlder, ln part: ‘It shall be the duty of al1 offl6om to aharge and collect ti the manner authorized by lav all fO88 and acmmlr8lonr vhloh am permitted by l8v be a8sssred and oolleated all offlclnl semloe performed by them. A8 ad Vhen suOh fee8 bra oolletoted they rhell be gqo8lted in the Offlamm Selary Vund, , . .
Section 22, Artlals 39120, V.A.C.S., provider, in partr
Honomble Loroy L. L(oom, -go
"'Ru p3bV&81OM Of th18 &It 8h11 be aUDJU- latlvo or all lhV8 not la oopillot hwewlth."
UndSr Artlole 3912e, a8 It nlAte8 oompennratlon of aouaty Offiaem and vrOVid*8 the 8t&tUtO ohad bS that ouBUhtlV@ OS all Other &V8 not ir, OOPnlat thorwith, thO8S
l'OV181OM of Artlole 3891, rroala in l ffaot vhloh nqulr~ Pl, that ourmnt Seer oarned and aolleated by aounty offloars of the maximum l lbvana. should bo paid into the ln OX0088 County Tre8rury and (2) that the Ooaqaenutlon and WinUlllO thereln fixwl 8hOUld apply to all fooo end aompen8atlon vbat- sowar aolleated by orid offloSr8 in their offlolal aapaoltlss, vhbther aaoountable [88] Seer OS offlaer under the pmreat law (HueaoS County v* Currington, 162 S. W. (26) 68'7). It Is clear tbst the aompenSuatlan mformd to in your Inquiry not of the kind ti ohmaotor exempt from the provlrloar of Artlolr 3891, sup=. In th. O.S8* Of hOO.8 1. CUPringtOn, 8.w. bu!ltJ
(26) 687, the aounty tax a880880r and oolleator ~88 sued by the oounty for the maovery of the amount of certain fees or charge8 aolleoted by Said asse8sor and oolleotor thr ls- suanoe of tax oertlflaateo. tie tax 688088Or pnd OOlhCtOr contended that thSm ~88 no rtatuto~ duty on hSr part ir- BUS tat OtatSmSnt8 On property vhen thS tar08 Vex’8 not dslln- quent, and that rervlae 108uing a~rtlflaato8 on property Vh6UW th@ thX l ~tUO V&O nOn-d.OliPqu4Lit V&8 8 VOrSOMl UNiCO and that rho VW ontltlod to make a pbmonal ahargo thrrwfor srd nthin 8uOh money 80 m0eiV.d. The COUrt held tbrt thlr pertlaular SN1aS va8 in p4rforrannae of 8n sat vhloh she vas suthorlred to do by rtatute, and thonfon, Uah fee 80 OOl- leoted -8 In an *orfiaihi BqxLoltf , and that rush fee8 hould be paid into the County Treasury, rogardlrrr of vhothor or not thr fOO8 vora properly aOllOatSd. ThO Court f’urther hold tbht %liiOSO a fO0 18 nrovlded by bV iOr aIi OffiOihl 8eNlae re- quired to be perfimod, non; w by legally ah&d therefor. It doe8 not follov. hovovor. that b OountY vhoro offlolel ool-
eat8 a fee rowfilly. but under oolor of offloe. Is not en- titled to haze rame dmo8ltod and nald Over ln the 8amo me- u 18 naw w of fnr rm oolleat*
In the 0886 of Crorby County Cattle Co. v. MocDennStt, 281 S.W. 293, Court held that it va8 not vlthln the 'official *4 Hoaomble Loroy L. Hoore, P&go
duty” of 8 t8a aolleotor to mke 8 oertlfled lirt from tar reOord8 in hi8 Off100 rhOVtn# the ~8 mt of -08 md by vhm paid on 80 tract8 of land for tc yam 1901 to 1917, in- 01U81V.. 8uah 8 8ONlae v88 definitely beyond that required in ?umirhlng the uru81 tax rtatemento, ourrent and delinquent, merely shoving vhether the t8xer an 8 tmot at th8t time, 8re paid or’unpsld, vhioh has been held to be an *offlois hot”. of the matter 80 to vhether a The detemlnatlon
rerpice performed by 8n of?10181 18 in hi8 ~offloial aapaolty” depend8 upon the olmumrfanoer under vhlah the oompen8atlon 1s received 8nd the speol?la purpose for vhlah it va8 received 8s suah olmumst8noe8 8nd purpose8 relate to the pumlev and offlae. A fhat sltus- saope of the fbnatlonr of that partloulbr tloa involving olmum8t8aae8 md purpomer almost analogour to tht prerented by this lnqulry Is preoented in the 08se of Boerd of Co~lorlonem Bennepln County v. Dlokey, 0 N.U. 775s 86 lunn., 331, sup. ct. of nlnn. Pnvlow to 1 91, the aompea- 9a
sstlon of the dirtriot alerk o? Hennepin County vas established by a spool.81 fee schedule. &a that thlr offioer va8 paid yur, 8 fired al8ry In lieu of all fee8 vhlah he had been alloved to retain before that time, aad he vao required, under the l alary lav, to turn over to the county treasury all Seer aolleoted by him In hi8 official ChphOity. The fees offlolAl SONi of the clerk, aooordlng to the fee rohadule, vere not changed In any vay biter aompen8atlon var ohhnged fran the fee baols After the olerk took possessloa of the of- to a fixed ralary. floe, vlth hi8 oaupensatloa fixed a t a deflalte &ary, he aoa- tlaued a pmatloe of furnishing dally reports to abrtmat oom- pbn.ies bnd oamaemlal agenoler. There unauthentlaated repOrt8, given out rt regular lnteNals, oonoemed information derived from the ii108 and lWOOrd8 vlth refemnae t0 8UitO aommenoed, amounts Involved, ns vell 8s judgment8 ntomd md docketed.
There vao no express strtutory requirement for the olerk to reader this rervloe, aad no fee vas rtipulhted la the fee sohed- ule ruch re~loe. Por this vork, the alerk rocelved a oom- pen8atloa agreed upon betveen him and tho8e vhan the rtate- mentr vere fuml8hed.
In this oar. the Court held thbt the furnlohlng of these unautheatlaated stateaents to oamemial 8genoie8, eta., made from aa kxamlaatloa of the file8 aad I’eOOl’dO in his auotody, vas vlthin the purvlev 8nd raope of hi8 offlal81 employment, 8ad that the olerk vas not 8uthorired to 8 pm ri8te to his ovn Use the acmpenoatlon reallsed therefran. phe knmt held further the fsot th8t a rchedule of Seer had been prerorlbed for the *5 Ponomble Leroy L. Moore, Page
8ONiO88 Of UI OffiOihl 18 at!t U invariable te8t thbt tb l mmemtod 8emlae8 ma the only one8 randond in hi8 @0rri0ibi hi8 Oh$lhait~s, Vithin th. MhllhQ Of hll l Ot providing t&t 86~17 8ba11 bo in ,tll p8ymOat for all seNloe8 reador Ia hi8 OffiOhi Ohphaity. th0 alBttOl’ &S t0 Vb8t OOnOtitUte8 l fOO8m
b di8aU88ing t301 100ted in an l o rtiairl oap balty m, th e Court r bidr
. It L8 olalmed thbt the money8 reooivsd
b !i " vord la proprrl resp~ahnt 8tbtemente ?umlshed the rtraat men and l gsaoleo vere not ~feer,' b8 thbt
UndOr8tOOdj tbbt 'fOO8' bre oompan- 8btiOn for wrt I OUbl' hOta Or 8ONiOOO rondored by pub110 OfflOor Ln the line Of their duty, ~8 ex- presrly deoignated and uthorlred by lav. Th18 alelm 68 thU8 abstreatlt 8tbtOd 18 oorreat 68 fbr 68 it goer, yot ve must rtlll oon8ldor vhether the olerk oould appropriate to hi8 0vn uoe ei!IOlUmOnt8 for servlaer not vlthln the provlrlon8 of the fee sohedule, vlthout referenae to their sssntlal oh&motor, simply beoaura not mentioned therein. in terms thbt olerkg8
The hot of prs8arlber salary hall be in ?ull for all servloe8 rendered in hlr ~offlalal oapaalty'. It vould therefore seem neoersary dstemlne vhether the foe bill fumlrher a fitiri0i0e orlterloa the olerkL's legal dutle8, and hen00 la &a lnvarl&ble te8t of ~o?floial abpbolty,g vheraby the right to mtala or tullr over 8ay OOmpea8otlon ha reoelvns 18 to be tested. The Honnopfn aotuty fee bill before the oommutatloa provided ln the salary bat oould hardly be regarded b8 rum.lshlag tho sole standard of 0s.
flolal obllgatloa lmpoled upon the alerk by lav. St 18 trw th8t thlr sohedule otablirhsd the smolu- ment8 0s tha offioe. In this mrpeat ths olerk va8 ooatrollsd by it. It v&s slro a proteatlon to the publla bgalnot Improper aharger an4 ualavful exao- tiOZl8, but & VOW 8light &ppliMtiOn Of lV88Oll t0 exlrting ooadltlms vi11 shov thet it oould not hsve been regarded 6s tho sole s~wsure of ~offlalal oapaaltyl or ths limit of the legal burdens impored We shall rind upon inveetlgatloa upon th ale*. awerow lnrtanoer in our proaedure statute8 vhere dUtiO8 &HI iBIpO8Od Up alOrk8 Of aOUFt8, YOt VO vi11 not diraover ia this Other ?Os bill8 l XVXJ88 *6 Honorable Leroy L. Moore, Page
requlrsment8 th8t ruoh offloer8 rh81l do any bat vhbteve~, 80 that, if the80 raheduler are be regarded 68 tort8 of duty, It must be for the ma8011 that uah dutie8 bra implied beaau8e oompmsatlon 18 provided therefor, That duties bra lmplled from their reoognltlon ln a fee bill may be true, but if ve vere to go to fee rohedulas to aroertala from that souroe &lone vhen the alsrk hot8 in btl OffiOisi OapaOlty, VO Shall 6180 find that in material re8peotr they are inadequate , , , bny aomparl8on betveen the duties vhioh fees to offlolals bra 8peolfloelly provided and those vhlch are lmplled ~111 show that lmplloatlon Is the rule, express requirement the exoeptlon. The legislature has already lmposed, and may llkevlse hereafter impose, upon publie offlaials, smoag them olerkr of court, duties for vhleh no emolu- ments bra pnsorlbed. Suah dutleo cannot be evaded upon the olaim that fees bra not peolfloally de- signated thenfor; slnae the reasonable vlev 1s vell settled by the dOolOiOn8 that the emolument8 allowed to a pub110 officer under a fee system of compensation constitutes the sole remunemtlon he is to receive for.hlr entire official services.
Hechem Pub. Off. a 862, snd cases altsd; State v.
Smith fwinn.) N.w. 775,
"~aquertionably, OffiClalS are rerponslble publlo agents, vho murt tserve pub110 interests; and no duties enjoined are more velghty than many lmpO8Od upon court olerko, vho are l&rusted vlth the bb8OlUtO aontrol of reaords o? the highest im- port&nor; and it ha8 r1vby8 been the objeot of the lav not only to have suoh reoords open at proper timer pub110 inspection, but to require suitable aid fran their custodians ln the reco&sed benefits to 611 vho need lnfomatlon therefrm. Hsaoe It vould follov that the giving of lnfonnatlon, by the olerk his salaried deputlee, during office hours, vhich require8 eraminatlons, snd, as lnoldent to this vork, vritten 8tbtement8 of the IWSUltS, la in its very essence and charaoter offlaial, and not personal to the officer, upon any fair and reasonablelvlev of vhat appertains to the duties of offloor
A,rtlole 3920, V.A.C.3. prerorlbes a fee for a ooustty clerk certify any fact or faotr oontalned in the recorda Of *7 gonomble Leroy L, Hoore, Page
hi8 O??iOO. !Tho bmako 8nd other oannerol81 ln8tltutlons mentioned aould get the derired ln?omatlon in that vayr I? the ln?omatlon van seaumd in that vay, there 18 no doubt thbt ruoh rervlao rendered by the alerk vould be la hi8 *0rrl0tri aapbalty,’ The f&at that 8Ubrtantiblly the s.WM lafolmrstlon 188~ be given out ID 8 different r0m, or not aertlfled to, doe8 not relieve ouoh rervloe from be- - orrloid ln rmture, emanatdng fram the oifioe of the In this Ooaneotlon, in the a&se of Board of aounty olerk.
~~lsrlonem of Ileaaepla Cc. v. D%okey (suy.ra), the Court
* it Is provided that the clerk ohall have foi iv;& oertlflcate .fwnlrhed 6 e~eolfled fto. Whllc no certiflastes to the80 statements vex-0 l’OQlt8ted, or, In fact, sttaahed, yet state- meats over certlflcatos could h8ve been deprsaded, and the clerk vould, under the Inplied obligatlonn required by the fee bill, have been bound to have given thomr Vhlle vt vould not hold that the strte- manta ?urnlshad teohnloslly is11 wlthln either of these speoiflo provlslons for fees, yet purposes vhloh they vezw lztcnded lnMcr.te tha objeots sought thereby, rnd ahazwattrize the rervloes actual- ly rwdored as offlalal . , . .
"We must not f&&l to give till slqnlflaonoo, in dealing with the~questlons preoented, to the efrlolent results of the salary hot, and the ohanged rel8tionr betveen the olerk and the coua- ty offected thereby. It is quite alem Iran the very terms of this act that the oounty vso to h&V0 all smolumeots the alcrkgs offlclal aeNlae8, or vf;ich could be reasonably obtilned~by a falth- fil adminlstrstlon of thr offlae , . . . If oopleo, oertlflcattr, or ss"mher vh4re no aoples Yore made would vlthia my fair intention e%pootatlon pro- vide a m08no bv vhloh rervloes of the clerk vould be given to aeouro legltimcrte end*, it ought not be evrded by any plrn ths$ vould deprive the oount its revenuer to ortbts parqulelter for hlm84f.. I . .
“Ye 8re themfom required to adopt tha oon- oluolon tht a proper legal vlev Of the alerk'r *8 HonOMblO Leror L. moor*, Rage a
duty dul vlth tha moner thw noelvrd frcm the 8tataentr furnlrhed to the abrtmot mm rad l Ml@O murt be dotenrln~d bgblnd hi8 68. r o rt rlg htr to l p p r o p ri4tr th4 Mao to hi8 3% ovn UIO, Upon the OOnridrr*tion# tht ruoh rtate- mUit VW@ iurn18h4d b hi8 OffiOhf tip&Oity, it V48 11kW18. th0 int@lW8t snd th0 md thbt olur right of the oounty to broo the oaepoaaa- tiOIi l'M0iV.d tbMfW tUFllOd intO it8 trOb8v; ir Of LIO 8ignifiWtlOO thbt the 8pOOifid Ubd it fro8 Qrovldod in th. 8Ohedulo for 8e8rehO8 VOX’@ llOt in tOm8 eXbOtod, Or OVOll that BOFO than logal foe8 hbd boon reaelvod br the lork; for, ruoh rervloer be- offioi81 in OhbMoter uid hbVfng bOOK4 VObld@AX'il~ Qbid, uhatOV8l' Vb8 [80] paid bOO8W b NIOUFOO Of the OOlUlt~,, Wkd not b perqulrito of the rlerk, But, if any quertion OOtid *rite [8] t0 the OOrCbOtne88 Of Oh8l'ge8 thur made, it vould be of no avail to the re8Qondent, nor oould he take bdV8ntagO of mi8tak.n right8 if& thlr X'O8PttOt. Thi8 vould be b QUe8tiOn to bo 8Ottlsd bOtV8m the ~eI'8on8 eying fOl' the th0 OOUdJ . . . . 8Ol’ViOO8 brd
From foregOill& it bpQObr8 thbt th. rending Out of mortgqa li8t8 t0 bank8 Or other8, i8 &n bOt don. under and for 9urpo8ar vhloh lndl8bta thst 8uoh rwvloe olroumrtano@8 18 vlthln tha purviev md 8oope of the offfoibl aqdoyment and the fUDCtiOB8 Of b OOllIity olork. A180, it V.11 8OttlOd that vhon the oa&Mn8ation of 4 pub110 offioor ir loft to oonrtruo- tlon, it mart be frrvombly oonatrued in fbvor of the goverment. (%8thIid County v. I&ml, 288 8.V. 5181 Burke v* Bexar County, 271, 3.V. 132). VbOl'O b 8tatUte [18] orpable Of tV0 OOlI8trUOtiOn8, one of vhloh vould give an offloer oompenration for hi8 rrmiccr in 8ddltlsn hi8 8al8ry end tha other not, the latter conrtruc- tlon 8hOuld be bdOQtedr (kiddan ve krdy, 50 S.Y. 926)
Aftor oarefullr conrldering the pertinent oonrtltu- tiOD81 ti 8htUtOrJ FOVi8fOM , together vith the buthoritie8 E herein elted, it ir t l opiaion thlr departaent that the oom-
pmr&tion reorlved b7 b County Clerk for QIWEring &nd mailing Out mortgage li8t8 t0 bstlcl , and for other vork of b like natur8, raeountable [68] 8 fee Of OffiOO. YOU re thertfore 8dvi8ed that County Clerk of Bourtoa County, bnp other oounty in
2XJ Bonorrblo Leroy L. Hoore, No 9
-8 tStO QJOM king 0 l UbFJ br81#, rhould rarit 8UOh m* tba county Tmruror fOF tbo benoiit of the Offloor' to wu?r plrdt tha forogolng full~mrlms you, ln- Tlu8tlag tht
qulry, vo arm JAXIff