Case Information
*1 . GENERAL OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS NrrO.RNM GENERAL , .
O$lQlOla an& ahllw aI to the proper procedure to pw5Uie uwler olr0tmr6anaes. The pert the ?:’ fagts la,the aewe may be CouM la lq 8.W.
Berles 013 Patp 1089. !me olalm rubmittell to UI Hr. 2. B. Blokett, lawysr at Liberty, ‘Pexdia, b a toraeJ f for Mrs. )lartin et a1 1s enaloded here- with. Please them to me vlth your opinloo.” return
8’7C The HfMlrrr uebe g~a ed permlariaa ?@i~ rtilt &iln.t tb State of Team3 J w the mghuay agoltmemt 'Of the State of 2exas by Act8 W55, 44th Id lrlatzare,’ Chapter The pertlaent sQotlons 0 % thini Act are an lo rot? 511* I
. . %a. 4. T&at proaera lo ewh suit say h
oervdl upon the oovwoa oi Twas and the Elttorasy Qmural of Tsar 8~8 e%y &t@ment vhlch may be re- ooosred by reaao~ of, 'the promoutlon oi thlm au&b &all be oamble 5118 of’ bbe foods of the lilmy
87’7
Bon&able P. ,C. Cheer, fnt&b 3
!I%8 XiM'tlar' rulb War Mae& otiU~~~~5d$/@;- g8Ms ‘or ti mghuey IM+Ptntunt.
la
this State that the State lo Mb liable for the tort8 or ncgllgsans ot it8 offloere or a@ats OF 8eymata eagsged 10 the perforlilfmt8 ai a gowmlls5ntsl funotloo, utas55 it ha8 e~rersly l 88roLbd sugh llobtllty. 10 la Uso well wt- the lcwatloa, &e#lgartlon, ooamtruatiaa ud rule t&b: that tenanm of Sbate hl@away8. b;r the Fll&?ay JWarbm8at a8 10 wooy OS the at&be 18 0 lutwtloc%. mate ** vwmatu nalSiaplm7, 76 8.W. (24) $8f 8tate v. Plovera, 94 8.U. (?cI) 2J.Y; (RI) 534, wro~ rofused~ Martla l93~ Brooks (I. Stat 63 vs Sbabeb 88 SJ?. C%b) 41, 05ror r&mod. The doabplas ot raqmUerb s~rior -Qaw sob l vxil a@lart the 8wo~eligz~ ID the moortar rrsploymeot o pub110 amate.’ 'Ibo exmapblorr p"
1. beti ~$08 the aOvwa$gn ohWa6tsr of the Jstata rod it8 ugeaaler, aad upoa the abssme of obllgatl.om, aad nob on 00 resisdy bar beea provided. SW State ve bhs grouua that Plcw555, rupee.
Therefore, the. lo ~165 resulti in bh8 death cd Hartlo gzm rln I&O Piab i llty agalaeb x5 state cul&55s the State ha8 expaw85l.y u85tmd swh l.iabillby. Slnab them uaS LIO gm8ral &if lo 4Sfa,4b at Ehe bum af thl8 i&jo%y a8- ruml~.81& llablliby, bhe questloa ar154a:uhebher Seqtiw 3 of the Aot cw be eoPlerOrued a8 suoh quoted Umos, -0s. m5; aaallsapt 1QR.' the AQt be omkstnmd a8,a 8gw!lal law, “IS
depolvlqg the state ai a deSenae 10 a partWutea oaw, 10 la uaaowtitutlowl an be1 Vlt5WXWJ at Seotloa 3 of tbs Texas Bit ot Rl tii rkbth provider that all 5140 rbnll hw5 4~51 &Wr.’
It 15 5l50 vloletlv* of Artmle 111,~ s55Eloo 56, ' vhloh ,provlde8 btxib of OLW Sbste GoollOLtutloa,~ aa'loca3 or 'kpeelal lav &all be.Qrmroted i&We 4aO be We liQ&2ltOrb&. 'The Pu*- 8 ~aeral Uv .wm.oi thir eoaotlButloaa1 tuhl+ftfon 4@rist ,c@ctsmab of local or 5$-5418X laur 18 a, obols- t&4 503e ORea' It is intouded 00 prwttnE the woatlrrg of 5p44ial~prlvlle~58 and ta 844~~ utllformlty of the State 88. far 68 pos8ibl.e. ( hu ~througbout bllller v. El Pa50 County, 136 Fex. 370, 150 S+W.
(pd) 1000, lGG1. 2% oc~bainly MS aot the in- t$otiw of tib* fraraere OS our CoasP,Ltutton that *4 lion0 19ble 2. C:‘Groar, p0ge 4
Cbs Btete rbauld hays arrtain QsPencea sgainst
sosc) iad~oiduals, but not against otbera alarilar- ly altuatod. *
ln rlew of Ch% f’aroi;oin~~, nsi&hO.r tbo dlstrlat court of Liberty CEountp, nor my other co&H, undar any alr- cucmtanac,o, &ad juriodiotion to render thn judglaonf wbiah w48 rrnd4rod hero, and ttiorrsfore Chr judgment is rold in antlmCy. Thn rulr has booa tbua rtated by the 3iprci.w its Cmrt in hIthor v. Mttrrscrn, 27 Tax. 4918
*Order8 or judgasnCa which the aouxt baa not cha powor unarr any olrmbarCmaos to make or raador
of eaurao , aall ad, balm mull, tholr null- !zi’nmy br nseorbad In say aallrtsral proasodlna, whore they CLII rrllrd on in support OS e alala Of right. vhe aaae or an adminfatrrtioa upm t&3 aetata raan has alrasdy barn gl~cn 08 an oxaa-
or o llvlng plr of absoluts .aulllty of the pmcasEla&a of a probate aaurt, svan whsre svary 4Eep has beau taken to bsar with perfoot rsgularlty; and It ir ~11 la in thls aaae the prooeadln&:s OS ths court mind that axe absolrrtqly null, bowauec) the aa la act ana UPOO whloh ths eouy.t~ Ithe, the tiffht to dellbsra te, and not for any or;hex reraan.” Cf like erfoc? le Ckiujr fr Cowdan, 251 3. %. 622,
writ rstueau. ‘iWe CYBB Involved. Q ti+ituntlon ahera 4 gumdim sjqliod for parnlssioa tii ox~laa1~3 hsr wmlta iana tor ~UA~B la another county. The oaurt gmitsd tha epplioatlon snd t&e After ths serrda Barn of age, they brweht d6t0as w6m axchangad. umwsl ~&ad snd to puliut title. TRo wit tha guardlanla court aala:
Vhs dssa sou ht to bs aanaslsd Is void bo- aaueo the appliart I! on af the guardlsa, ths order of the aourt, and the approval order, .-se wall the probeEs court had not the the daod, lrhow that power to euthorlze ths (gusrdian to sxohW$a ths land4 of tho wards. Therefor th4 or%ara war@ subjsct attmck. . . . to eolletaral
Hondrable D. 0.~’ GreeP, page 5
“The guardian Is nowhere authorized to exahange the lands of the wards by any atatuts, so the pro- bate oourt aated in excess of its jurlsdlatlon, . .
. .”
Set;~also Commtinder v. Bryan, 123 S. w. (2) 1008. Sinas the judgment Is abaolutaly voici:; ft oannot oonstltute a valid olaim’against the State or the, State High- It 1s the opinion of this department way Funds. Therefore, that Rouse Bill No. 826 is unoonstltutlonal beoause it,is In vlolatlon of Artlale III, Seotlon 44, of the State Constitution.
We return herewith your file on thla matter. Very li.fulp yours ATTORNEY’ tiji3Bm. OF TEXAS ALM:db
b”nolo6urs