Case Information
*1 OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN GLRILO c. MANN Jasiuary 8, 1939 rrromm ..“.“.I.
Hr. L. L. Roberts
county Auditor
StiMett, 'itiii%B
Dear l3r. iicbsrts:
Your mquest for an oplnla9 on the gue&tciSn,
!?Gould the tax eseessor-co~lectar OX MS de~tles be al- lowed to ohar~e for the we @ tkoDr oar or car8 ot3er than gasoline and o:l?", Bee b..aa recw?.vad by this offlce. Vol. 34, page 544, 3aotion ‘icx~s .Tm$-spudeno&, 121, provides: hl..il officaor is a?t e%tltle(: to oredit or tha ox*nae ot.biring or operati‘ autorngbilas uead ty him CF
In pe%,b.rsal~ tm duties 0r hls o?- fioe-utieahthe statWe ao providead "The wffioer is entitled to orsd- kt ror 0ctiibl IHld neobasary expellEe inc.chd In tke conduct or his 0rciOe. The 03.5tase of the neoesssry ex>ensa mcanb otI)or cxgenac similar tc tkcse sxQp3s~g specirled.' The abo* wtborlty cttlnr:ths oases, %zmoad vs. ferris Co*unty, 243 l8.K. 1002; Cameron County YO. ?ox, 42 Z.7:. (26) 653.
Article 9899 of the F;evlsed Clvll Statutes of 1929, atr emended, does not grovine for such ax- Teree, pens8 for the use of sutomobilsn for the tax a8seaaor- oollector and his deputies.
In the nbsenoe of a statutory prevision ror such expense the s&me would not be cleimed es expenoeo *2 ,
.
I&. L. L. Roberts, Jtmmry 6, 1939, Page 2 of ofrioe.
Trust&g that the above answers yau Inquiry, I remin
. ..* ,;A..?.;‘.