Case Information

*1 OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

Hon. C. J. Wilde

County Auditor

.iWeoes County

corpus Chrlstl, Texas

Dear Sir:

99’7

"~.%dditioraal work nrsde necessary ?q~

ohanges and alterations of plans or for

other ressoAs, for whbh no prfoes ara

provldsd lnthe cmntreat, shall bade-

ftmd as 9%tr8Workwanb shallbepar-

fonntsd by the aoatraotor in aooordame

with them spaoifloutiona andas diw9atM;

provLded,however,thatbeforaaagextm

worki begtma ysq?plewmftalAgresmeat~

shallbe exmJuted,aJ?awr~ttanardezl.Is-

awd~thQR+nemtodo.thew~kaae

"Paroe Aaa.onAt. tiaaia, 88,, harelnrlfter pro- Yiderd. *

I *3 998 *4 999 Eon. 2. J. Ml&, Page 4 t&6 mggrmer~s e6t3.i+q6,,enolosed by

Reffmmoe to Of swh 'vs. xmx; et al, 234 Y. In the a*ae of mm6$ii on e, suit ,to asnoe~ 9. lf,~.l3l t?q &n&rl'had~uinler &qm a u&&6& Islada; *~,'a oauety @iWit6lW Of' LimestOAt! Count;y

6e of aso~.af a w&8 In 64x0066 of $2,000.00 smttaa saitl purohase priae and oontr6ot to ifiVe bids, @M WAtOAtiOA bt'w. lW@ that UAdttZ Art;iOlW and 2268b, vaptcrh ceartaln p&aatbally the"66ste zwqubemnts ab are Am8 aoAt6ined Frr swtioxi2 at ATEi 236&a, 6bov6 sat out, 66&3 CO&l'6ot,W66 void. l!hare J#S~ 8160 ti.olV6d ia 66l.d COntreCt the ssile~ mad Cauntg asrpart~pagpreAt;ofacr~dd~hasaprloe cc6mtls~i~r t3fo8rtatamule6 andotherprw3rty berangingto ~stoti'Cour&y et e price iri excess of $2,002).00. IA peEem upon safd contention, the Court held aa Pollw~:

Hon. C. J. Wilde, Page 5

"That the provisions of artiole 226th above -quoted were not xwimplied~tith by the oommlssioners@ oourt;~~of:~~est~. bounty In the transaotlon~ oora- ptairx&of bg,the &ppellant Ls u@lsputed: Heith& ;. .the pup&aae? oi:' the :~&S&&y nor' 'the sale up QX+~' .~ ohange.~*fi~ a&m j~.',w@on; && ,&&mess -ws su&itL :ted ~to'oomp&itlve~.bid6; ancVno'~notlce $hat swh'a pumhase sudidale :w ~333cohange was contemplated, or would.be made by then oonnnissioners* oourt, was given in a ni3wspaper?oz~by~ps6ttng not;ioiw at thi3 oourt+ : I h-e :~de@,. .!lW oeitk6at ant&f& &nto ~yolved the -: expemi$ture m pa-t of m&i3 t&ail $2,000 outof ~. z~-:,,i. the ~fuads~~~~.Qf.-~sf~~ .aotlzztJr ati ~5 &l-l? fh- '~ i :z. Mbltedby the ijtatute mentfoned unless the requlre-

miants~-the?!eofi ~.o~lied'vith..,~'sfie;la~g~ 'of i the :statute ti%Lsar; ~urmnb~guoi16;~'and ~wnphixtiii. ~'

The legiS%ati~ intf3llt and purpOSe 16 lI@nif8St, and the lti~~x%hould ihe~ebser&d and .given Sull~effect by the cominlssloners~ oourts of the state. The penalty for Sallure to oomply wkth its terms Is prescribed in artlole ~%68b, quoted above. Th+ penalty Soti suqh failure is that the oontraot'~6hall be woid and shall not be enfM%eable Ln ang oo@ of this state.

!l'he facts shovLng,a .failye to 6-1~ wSth ::thb'~lWgQ3- lative~act in ,qasstion, in the..preaent lnstanae, were _ .fjU&l.y~al~l&ged 3.n the:app&lant's petition &d estab-

lished by-the unoontrovertehfestlmony, and ,thk appel- ' lant was -entitlgd, we believe, to. the peliaf p??ayeW for in its petl$Wn, ax@ authoriced by the atat&ej~~~name- ly, that the per?Formanoe of'tba oontraot and payment of MY .any money thereunder be enjoined.

"We also are of the opinion that sinoe the appellant's mules, wagon, &nd harness vere disposed of by the aonrmissfoners~ aourt under the oontract In question, a OoAtWct lnhibi$ed by law, the entlre transaotlon was void and said property or Its value reooverable by the oounty. . 6 .'

In the case OS K.elly Y. Coohmn County, et al., 82 S. W. (2d) 641, the Commission of Appeals was pass- on the validity OS a contract sxeouted by Coohran County in twenty identloal Instruments. each oovering a 1/2Oth part OS a oon- tlnuous stretch of road construction, the evident purpose of having said contract so executed being to avoid aompllance vlth *6 Zion. C:J, Wilds, Page 6