Case Information
*1 C..
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN February 14, 1939
\ i A?
Donorable Cao. 2. French
County Attorney
Deinderileld, Texee
Dear Sir:
This Oifice SO, 1939, arking for an opi her a delinquent tax oontraot madb on Deoember 6, Morris County and Edgar Eutohings, ie e valfd
t provides for a 1s to termfnate under her advise that the its $a=m8 on De oontraot was E era1 and the Comptroller. oeeded yourself on You were then iranuary 1, 193 outed waiver required. mdseionera, who olgned the 6, and the oounty also hae e d,oommissioners indloated their e the same was entered Into, has been no euoh indication or retifl- ofiioe, his approval. nor has the newly eleoted erioan Jurieprudenoe, 210, the following . . . The members of’ e board og county oommdssioners cannot, however, oontraot in referenoe to matters which are personal to their suooessors. Thus, R contract which a board.of oounty oommiaalonera attempts to employ a legal edviaer for a period of *2 Hon. Ceo. B, Preneh, Pebruary14, 1.939, Page 2 to oomznence three months in
three ye&e, h he future and " the time for the eleotion of e person to fill after the vaoanoy oeuaed by the exptration of the tew of orfice or one x&ber of the board, the tern or exploy- ment extending over a perioc curing which all the members of the board as oonstituted et the time of the contwot will retire thererroz unless reeleoted, Is agelnst pubwe polioy . . .* Thb seema to be the law in Texas, which is expressed in 11 Tex. JUT., 651, es followa:
'Ordinarily, contracts 3ade by e coxmIaalonersL court may not be repudiated serely because the pereonnel body has. subsequently changed. It is only uh6re :the employmeut by a oaamissionsrs~ oourtis personal 8nd oonildential, aa in the ease of BP attornay, It la held that one co~esloners* court has uo power. bind its qluoot%mnwa last quoted stiWuwnt’ig~ based on the only~.Texas This
aa6e on the -subject the oase'of gulf BitulithZo Co. v. BOueces Onpaty, 11 2. 8. (24) SC%%, whioh eays~: .."'
*It 'la only where employment. by a cozmia&on--’ era* uourt Is .pereonel an+,s.cnfidential, as ,ioX~.tLtb ease. 0r an dttornay, that It ia xs9Wtbat .one 00nmlsrrion6am*~~ oourt eeunot bind its eue~es)a‘lY:
The court deo&Mcns ix m@% of the other states that We heva found hold that one oouule8SoSex~* oourt oaanot bind ita on personal contrset8,~ .&ffey County v. Wth, SC 1Can. suooea6or~ SW, 32 Pac. 30 (employment oi oounty printer); Prsnklln Oouaty v. Ranok, 9 Ohio C. C. -301 (lr. loyam& of courthouse Ulliken v. Edgar County, .&?!il. 828, 32 8.:%. 493 j","lont' of poorhouse auperintender,t]; Board of Commissionera 1; Taylor, 123 Ind. 148, 23 N. g. e& (mploymmt or,attcirney); end billett v. Calhoun County, 217 P;Le. 667, 117 So. 311 (employ%ent of attorney).
i:e believe +;?& the reasons w‘hich forbid 8 oommisaioncrs~ court to enter into a contract for the employment of e man in a persoml end oonflde~,tia& oapaoity extending beyond the tern of office of the indlri.duels aomposing such oomaiasionere* oourt epplfes to the employment of EttorneyS for the OOl- with peculiar force lection of deli!lqUCjnt taxes. *3 t
lroca. do. 11. Fmoh, fsbnuryl4, 'lQS9, Page S
A tax oolleotor-attomoy *rould need taot, petlence
an4 dlll.:Onoe, and e oansi8tslonors' Oourt a3uld lxwe every lncsntive to warit a aen tlth those qualltlds. 3~~31~ comda- doers nleht, am5 in aany lnstano~(~, would vlea the situation 13 aa entirely alrrsr4& rr0n the lnocmi~ ooz~68loner6. light In skwt, oeoh oo8kai8610nerav court 0haa be entit1ec to mnke Its own oontrects touohbag on th6 aettor.
?W-tlsars~~re,th~roaaybe a change ln the paraonaelo~ the 00ulltp ntt0roef8 0rri04 :a dmh mfm the timy 4i60t4a oounty ntt?mey would have rl@ts wh%oh oamot be overlooked.
Art;010 7s32, Rs7ifmd antutea, prwia06 ror th4 00uey r6~rosent tne State sod oouaty ln malts ror dUnqtmt attorney r-8 ror suoh 6ervloo6. tax86 and pswitm we 40 not b4um an oiatgolne oomlaaloner8' oourt, ping oounty attom
lawxxlsnt3 Ooun~~~~
soy 0r the rl tto~~pxysmt tka
mu to oolbot the xmnpbr8~ao thorer0r. Furtho~~re, w3 bolhvo that ondsr 6uoh ohoui~6tabnoo8 the ooontp n?xnal~ at leeat haye the ohange of havln$ a new scanty attora4y who w0til.C attsad to ouoh matters r0r tha statutor)- ma pmviaeb ror hiha da4 rhLah am gomrally a great coal les8 than the oaprroi68lonspaZU C&O,, leotorcoetornoy. It 16 tma that in thlr lostan& tho~pswant oounty attorney 1s tb 8~ smn uh+ wa# ooaaty attorney at the COntntOt B&i*, but t?le f-wi th -8 pti?~Oiph the -8
Fe do not bdl41vo that the autlon tvio iam W&O #re lattw to take aKlos as wamla:crlonera In lxdloatl'ng that they qqeo~ml tha oontraot has any beuiag on the cueatlon at hand. suah lnaioaticn on their pert wao aot qt orricfal eat and oould not bo euoh until t!mg hna qualiflsd ttir their reapeotlve orflce8.
iIbae%t any ratlfloatlon 0P the4 oontrnat. Lt la, t~iaretore, our oplnlon t&t ?sa!!e lb not a bindInt: obligation upon nOrTi8 County.
“fOUri VSV tNry