Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Bonorable Ben J. Dean
Dlstrlat Attorney
Breokenfldge , Texar
Dear Sir:.
of Texan, 19Z5, 1s to be foil
illed in the dlstrlot uourt o
on of the80 tw.0 artlelas that rke ior the same 8enlce arm tees to the Qounty
at aounty court he Ibaa or oaee8 do no
amount lnrol~e6 NO. 699 or the regular
glslature, veraQJl'8 Texar 166, the jurlsdlctlon of the County was dlmlinlshed in that clrll and *Is it your opinion the Distrlot C&k of that Gtbphtins County, that 6rblnarIly would be tile& lq oases filed h the dlstrlot oourt
in the county oourt had not the jurlefllotlon been trannfarrod tothe dletrlot to charge for reos' the rater oourt, would be entitled presorlbed in Article gQg7 or would he requlrod to charge for fees the rates proscribe& in Article 5950 which governs ooun~ty court fee&V*
Hoat Ben J. Dean, Page 2
Ad1018 5929, Revised Civil Statute6 at Texas, 1926, pro- video authority of dirtriot clerks to oharge aud colleot fees rendered by them la civil for rrenloes oases. 3950, Pevllred Civil Statutes Artlole or Tescm, 1926, is for l mmralag and eolleotlng
the authority reel, by the county clerk. Botise Bill No. 699, acta of the Regular Session of the Party-sixth Legislature provides, in part, aa follows:
“That the District Court having jurisdiatloa la said Stephens County shell have and exerolse jurladlctlon in all matters and oases of a olvll aud oriulnal nature, whether the ssme be of original jurisdiction or or appellate iurisdiatlon, over which, by the General Jaws ot the state of Taxes now existing lad hereinafter eaaoted the County .Court of maid County would have had jurlediotion, and that all pending 01~11 aad erlminal oases be and the same are .herebby ~tiansferred to the District Court for the Hlaetleth Judicial Dlstrlct of Texas, aittlag la Stephens Couaty, Texas, and all writs and procam heretotore lsaued by or out of said Couhty Court in maid civil or orimihal oases be and the same are hereby made returnable to the next term of the District in ahd for the Ninetieth Judlolal District of Texas Court, altting la Stephena County, Texas. Provided, however, that there rhall not trausierred to raid District Court Jurls- dlotlon over any judgmeata, even in olvll or criminal oases, rendered prior to the time thla Act takes rffeot and which have beaome final, but as to such judgments the aald Couuty Court #hell retain jurlsdiotion for the entorcement then- of by oxeoutlon, order of sale, or other appropriate pro- oess. . . *
Thus, it la seen;that the Legislature, in its wlrdom, hag seen Tit the scope of jurisdiotlon of the District Cbrtrt to broaden of Stephens County, Texas. By the very nature of the duties of the District Clerk of Stephens County, he is charged with keeping of the proceeding6 in the district Court to which he Is reoorde to the oourt’8 broadened powers ’ attaohed. As a neoessary Incident the ~dlstrlct olerk 18 given increased dutiee $0 pertom. Hou?e Bill Do. 599, supra, makes no provision6 for litigants in the district court, rho. previous to the passage of ruoh atit, would have paid fees into the office of oouhty clerk, to continue paying the schedule of fees set out in Artiole SQSO, supra.
Ne necessarily reach the conclusion, and you are SO advised, that all litigants in the Dietriot Court of Stephens County whether there virtue of the original jurisdiatlon or such court prior to *3 Boa. Ben J. Dean, Page 9 passage o? Eouaa Bill No. 599, or then necessarily reason
or its broadened jurladiotion, are amenable to and mat pay the ?eee provided ror in Artlole 9928, aupra.
Truetlng that thla'aatla?aotorily anmera your inquiry, wa ara
Yours very truly ATTORKEY GlXEFtAL OF TEXAS LA;ob
APPROVISI) XC-L 21, 1959
13. NOOre
FIRST A8s18TANT ATTORNEY WHERAL Opinion Comlttea ;;ps; . . ., Chairman