Case Information

*1 .

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

GROVER SELLERS

AIIOIIN‘Y GCNERM.

Honorable L. W. Vance

county Attorney

Tltua County

Box 207

Mt. Pleasant, Texas

near sir: 'opinion No. O-6730

Be: Whether ooapense We harr reoeired JO

the above oaptioned matter,

a8 rou0w8t r0r YOU 0plni

armor opiniona in e opinlon8 hare are three matters in theae opfnians. to me by the COD

n paid ;Idling special matters 7, would that aean that count7 efiected thereb7 would be allowed to re- fees up to ;jOOO.OO and l/3 of the excess, to erased ,i3750.007 In other words, would it amount allowed under Artiale 38837 -Third, would such a raise for ordered by the Court on July 1st mean that 8 total maximum of ;j?50.00 could be retaked this year or only a total naxi.auz of ..jj7j.rJO? Or ,tiould each &if ;resr’s fees kve to SC: totaled cz: fi,urod sepratcl;?" *2 iionoreble i.. Yi. Vanoe, page 2

Xc enawer to your first quertion, we q.zote from an opinion rendered by Honorable Soott Gaines, First Aseiatant Attorney General of Texas, on January 2, 1935:

*Unless statute provldea for the county ettor- ney to represent the oountg in a olvil aotion, It 18 not the duty of the oounty attorney to do 00.

In oaaee where the oounty attorney In required to represent the county and no ice lq preeoribed, then the oompenaatlon of the oounty attorney is the 8x oifioio oompenretlon that will be allowed under Article 3895, eroept 5.n oaaea where a oertaln amount of money is reoovered, then his compensation Is thgt authorized by Artiole 335.

“In. oases where the law does not requlre the oom- oounty httorney to represent the oounty, penration is thet whioh I8 agreed upon between the oounty attorney and the oomalssionerr* oourt just In the same manner as If some other attorney had been~ employed by the oountyIm

The Attorneya .Generel of Texas have oonslatently held that the’oounty attorney is entitled to reeeoneble oompeneation for aervioem performed for the county v other than those ser- vices required by law, and said uoompeneetion Ie a&reed upon between the oounty attorney and the ooinmls.a16nere1 oourt just In the 8ame manner a8 if come other attorney had been employed by the oounty.” We al80 oall your a ttehtion to Attorneya General Opinions NOD. O-45, O-225, O-1040, 0-1796 O-3599, O-3656, O-4955, O-5263, 0-5306, O-5905, end O-6376, ooplea of whioh have already been mailed to you.

ln oonneotion with your seoond question;, we call your attention to our Opinion ?;o. o-6592, w hioh provid.eer, In part roii0w8:

*The maximum ex-officio compensation which mey be allowed seld Sheriff is any sum which, when added to other compensation and excess fees allowed to be retained by him under said Xrtlcles 3883 and 3891, does not cause such officer to reoeive a tote1 oom- penration in exoess of Three Thousand Sevsn Eundred *3 zoonorable L. W. Vanoe, peg6 4

oS oompensetion from eny 8ouroe which 6 oounty officer OS Titus County ia allowed to retain cannot exoeed Three Thousend Seven nunarea end Fifty Dollar8 ($3.750.00) per year.

In oonneotion with your third question we 0611 your et- tention to our Opinion No. O-6576, which reed8 in part 88 followrr

R . Any inorea8e of fmlery for the year 1945 must ;e*in the proportion a8 the balance of the year relate8 to the total annual lnorea86 that may be made under raid Act. In other word@, IS . . . the increase In oompensetlon f8 allOWed a8 Of June let, then the lnorease for 1945 would be 7/12ths. . . . The oom- pen8etlon for the month8 pessed oannot be inoreesed.

"In oonneotion with the foregoing We dlreot your attention to Art,689a-11, V. A. C. S,, whioh is In part a8 roiiowr:

evWhen the budget ha8 been finally approved by the Comml88ioner8* Court, the budget, a8 approved by tha court 8hall ba riba withthe Clerk of the county court, and taxe8~levled only in aooordenoe ture8 of the Sun48 OS the oounty ~8hell there- therewith, and no expendi- after be made etoept in, 8,tri0t oompllenoe pith the budget ~a8 adopted by~the court, zxoept that " emergency expendlturer, in oeee of grave,pub- 110 neoersity, to meet unueual and unforeseen 00nditi0n8 whioh 00ula not, by naaonably aili- gent thought end attention, have been inoluded in the origin61 budget, may from time to time 'be 6UthOrlz6d by the Court a8 amsndmenta to the origin61 budget, In all oases where such amend- ments to the original budget 18 made, e cop7 of the order OS the Court emending the budget. shell be filed with the Clerk of the County Court, end etteched to the budget originally edopted.(" Appl7inC the above quotation :o your s~ciSi0 in<uir;-, you are advised that if the inoreese is ellowed es of July 1 194~5, then the meXi.m~ increase for thi8 year Would be 6/li&. In other words, the maximum oom~ersetion thet any officer of Titus County could reteFn for would be j3375.00.

iionoreble L. i'l. Venoe, p6G.e 3 In no event,

and Fifty Dollar8 ($3,750.00) per year. 00uld the fees 0s 0rri0e and 6x-orrioio compensetlon retained by him exceed the maximum of Three Thou8end Seven Hundred end Fifty Dollera (33,75C,Oo). In other Word@, the maximum amount OS oompen8etfon from any aouroe whioh he ir ellowed to retain onnnot exoeed Thne Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($3,750.00) Per yeara

(I . . .

"The 2% lnoreeae provided in senate Bill X0. 123 appllea to the maxhum oompensetlon allOW urider Ar- tloles 3883 and 3891, V. A. 0. 3. Seotion 2 of Ar- tiole 3934 haa been repealed by Ofiid Sentite Bill80. 123."

Attorney General*@ Opinion No. 0-6597 read8 in part au

fOaOW81

'In view 0s the foregoing it the~&nlon OS this depertment that Senate Bill No. 123, wpra, eu- thorizer the Comwl88loner8~ CcKIrt, when in their judgment t&e finanoial OOnditiOE 0s the oounty end the need8 or the OffiO6rO jU#%lfy the lnoreaae, to enter an order reiaing the maximum oOmpen#etion allOw8d by lew to an amount not to exceed 25$ of the sum allowed for the rlaOel year 0s ;r9U. In'other words it allow8 the Commlarlonerr* court to ralee by 2Yj the m8xlmua1 amount or oomp8aaetlon from any aouroe which he 18 allowed to retain. The l/3 exoeea fees provided for by Artlole 3891 ere ln- 0luded in the meximum.

"Stated encther way, no ohenS in the gisnner end method of computing the tote1 feee end oompznsotion to be allowed such offioers we8 made by senate 3ill it only reised the meximun mount alloWed Lo; 12.3, but by 25." These oplnio~s ere epplioeble to the matters &bout wl;lok you inquire in y0'u.r seoond question, vend in no event could the fee8 of office end the ex-offiolo compensation reteined by him exoeed the maximum of Three Thousand Seven aundred end Fifty Doller8 ($3,75O,OO).v In other Word@, the maximum 6mOtUt *5 &onorable L. W. Vadoi, page $ l naw*red You

We m#t that we have 8ati8faotorl4 in- f@rler~

Tour8 very tru4, t. 0. Davl@e rr* JCD1Lf A##i@t-t