Case Information

*1 ;; OF TEXAS

OFFICE OF THE AYTORNEY GENERAL AUSTIN

mmorabla Taylor Carllirlr

QiBiml Distriot Attornq

If% ";y$

, Mr. Fred V. llaridith

Attentlunr YOU ktt8r 0r wrtlng the opin- ion of this da~tment on n reti8 in part ** f ollovr I

"Plo8.e

oral'8 0 irri partstent s 8 r

e in our county 8 for raml**10n OS the mile adviae OS your Volume 26,~ peg. 15248 qaartlon vhether ozm who ha8 y or lmproporly lapored upon the a&mutt so paid may be oertrin ?aOt?OF8, ahief OS untary or lnroluntary pay- under olroumstaaos8 PYDS. Ii ths paymilt 18 ads dur888, 80 uhluh amount to eoer01on it must be regarded a8 an &ntoluntary ma, Sine may~nimZl$@;~~~~~sd~ othervlro not.

l'he care8 In-uhlab it ha8 been held that the paymant va8 under duror8 ari utu8lly tho80 In vhloh the auouaed Ya8 imprlsozwd, or va8 throat- enod vith laprisorupant, rod pamnt of the fine *2 ~OrdJb Taylor Cerli818, Page ^[2] t0 avoid Or BeOUT X’sloaae frOm

Ua8 liOO~88U~ such iQWi8OlUWlt. Threaten8d OC aOtUa1 diS- tralnt or property may, perhaps, also, -- at least wader SOW OfrOUIS8tUtOe8~ -- bo regarded $8 by Way of OO~~OBtiSe Beroly, or ^[18] pfQ’a.nt a8 8UffiOiMlt to OOrlStitUte ~duresm. But it the mada only to avoid ia8onvonienoo or trouble,

In Bailey v. Paulllna, 1OllC 463, 25 II. Ii. 418, it ~a8 held that ona who paid a ifno under a void ordinanoe vfth- out protest oould not raoover the money paid. In lierrington q. Sov York, 81 1. Y. Supp. 667, it was held that one who paid a ilna WpOSed by a IMglStrPte who had no jU??i8dlOtian to ipIp it YbS not entitled t0 I’eOOVW the WOnsy paid, when the p-I&t YES VOhUlt~y. It i8 rtated in the 0888 OS ~oulohan v. Hennob. County, 81 Atl. 449:

It la further stated in A. L. R., Voluum 26, “It i8 a Well-SOttlSd iaOt.that illegal , vhere the payment in to arold or aeoure release ] from lmpritonnant r0r nonpayment OS the fine,

it Lelqg held that a payment made under them *3 Eonorable taylor Curlisle, p8&v 3

OirOUJMt8nO~8 18 UI iIWOlllQt~y Oile, 4Rd th4t the Sine may ba reooooroA.’ (Citing nuwrous authorities.)

In the ease OS Herrington v. IVev York, suprs, the aourt ssld "that won Vhen the aaaured rotrully under un- lavful Urest St the tiW the PaJWnt VU made, it vould to allogo that the payment was prooured by roa- be neoe88ary aon OS suoh det8ntlon. And the mere ellqatlou that paymnt VII made because a fine imposed vas bald not to sfor dure8v in rata. VSS point04 Out by On8 Of the $~dgO8 It tbst fiIW8 haA boon ola88itied with tax88 and lioenser in applying the mistake 0r law 08mot rule that voluntary payment under bo rsoovered. . . .I(

It .var hold ln tho Oaae OS Bailey v. Paulba, supra, one vho hid boon oonvlatod OS violation oS the munioi- pal ordinanoo vhlah vu rold, but vho. had p8ld, vlthout pro- had not raised the QUSStiOn 0r test, the Sine wOSvd,.Md the nlldlty OS the ordinanue, oould not cooover rrom the amount ths rlne, and that this vas true mnlolpallty 0r even though, 8t th8 time it va8 paid, ho was under arrest.

fb OOUrt Stating the qUeStiOn th& VaS prerontod for it8 Bald: &OiSiOP

-The saots appsarlng in the quu$loM aro tho8.r (1) ~laintiff’a 888i@aoO VSS 8nd OOnViStod Slnod upon a void ordf!miao. (2) UJJO~ his trial he did not *also 8ay objootlon based upon the valldlty OS tho ordlnanqe. 3 Ho paid the Sine Uld OO8t8,VithOUt 11 4 The p8yment vas pCOtO8t. made Vhllo he VU under clrroat. It i8 rhovn that th8 paymsnt ves made vlthout proteitj rhloh, l v ve th& it YaS M4de by

UnderStand tb lUrguPg0, lbapI p~alntlff~r a8slgnor vlthout objootlon, or the delllal 0r tho jUSti OS the alaim, or l **0rt1on A wy’a@it SO m8ds 18 regarded OS his own rlgtltr.

u voluntary; and, In tha absanos OS fraud, de- Oeit or mi8take Of fMt, the noney OSnnOt bo ro- oovored baok. . . . It 18 POt alalm8d that the ddwd8nt in tbs ent was Induoed to m8ke

l ud, deoolt or mlvtt%k&: It i8, hOVOVtSF, iMi8tOd h0 VaS t&t under d&as, when he made the payment, by reason *4 gonorable Taylor %rllsle, page 4

0r the raot that he was then under arrert. But It is not shown by the statement of faots found In the qwsdlon, as omtifled to us, t&at the hnd anything to 40 with the pa$ment, or arrest the defendant was oon8traIned or Influenced there- by to make it. It Im~not 8hWn that, beoause of the dIWSSs, or the arrest, the defendat made the . . payment; nor can suoh a thing ,be Inferred. Ye.

may rs8dlly~pr~esumq the defendant..pald the fine and costs beoause he,belioved the jud&ment igaln8t"hlm.ma8 -validi 8rad this we are requlrsd to pi%SU@E; In. the ,abrenoo OS tiy shoWq OS ob- ‘feO$iOiI,~ Of if $)i&p$~Ikt US8 @ads +dOr pFOtO8t.' v

'fi',' It*has-be& he~d.tl&the a&sent is voluntary and .&&eSora--lrreooieEajila, vhers, at ti ,e tlms of psyxssnt oi fm dap$8dd, tjho.~eo~ed baa’ ~‘option to pay’the fine or’ to &~&BU& &d hs ~C’~QO8e8 t0 do thd rOrIBar,. *rOtA thOU&l -b jubnqbently appQd.8, and the aoxwlotfon upon cdolol iti set ggidi.' (D'Aloti v.' 3-t, 97 Atl.~.722,~8Sfirmed in 99 Atl. ,189,) At the, tlks'of payment ai tas rliws in thli oas*, ;the dblendiint~ verc uiuior upbn ocaaplalnt ror. arrest., .qlqlation of the .oIty'ordlnanoe, having .boen SOntOJWSd to py ripe or. sow0 time in JaLl.: Fo protest was m8do against payment of the Sine. . The.oouit Bald that the.le3ality.of~~

U3’eSS OOprIStS I&l fObO.lnl( 4 MFSOKI t0 4ot 83a%nSt hi8 Will,

d doe8 not eri8t rhere.the DeraOn Od uhoa it'18 ohargid, 1t has been exqralsed as an option or oholoe as to whether he will do the.thIng or partom the aot ml4 to have been d&is- under in this ease them were two iOI9iS ~durers~ or appeal wallablo to the QSoqdant as alternatives to pay- - the SineS, and t&t it SeQmd to~be the rub that IS drftUIdfbt8 had 8n alternatIVe to s&eking the poysbmt, they aust be regilded as harm beon voluntary, aad therefore not reooverablo. The propo8itlon ‘that IS one upon vhca a Sior Is imposed by a aourt having no juri8dIotIon to try the of- fepss and lmpore a Sine has an alt8rnatlre to pay the Siao or to &peal, and payment 18 IlOt l 88eZltial to avoid threat- ened 1mpPIronment, 8 payment with knowledge 0r the fact8 will be deenmd voluntary, and the money cannot be rsoovered.

It IS Stated in f%X'pU8 JUZ'lS, VolWse 49, par30 759: 'Noney paid under an unconstitutional or in- valid statute ordlnenoe, without any olroum- stancam of compulsion 18 paid under a mistake 0r *5 Honorable Taylor Garllslo, page 5

law, and 80 oannot bo reaonred eroopt in so far as raaovarp is pormittod under &he rule adopted in most states that paymsats imds by pub110 ofll- oars under mlstaks OS law are reooverabls.n WS have saraSUlly oonsldared Artlolo 952, VO~On'S

Annotated Code OS Criminal Pr008&~r8, In oonnsotlon with your to remit fines, rsquest . This st8tUta authoriaw the governor hawever, we do not think this statute haa.any applloa- . tIon to the question under oon8iaoretIon.

It *Ill be 808n rr0m the forogolng euthoritioa ordinarily the question whether one who has paid a fine il- ‘legally or Improperly lmpoaed upon hfm oan reoover baok the amount so paid may be S&a to depend upon aortain Saotora ohief of uhloh 1s that OS vol.pntary or lavoluntary payman&.

Ii the payment~b mad8 unaor olreum8ta.noee whloh smount to soerolon or dursss, so that s#ist be regarded as an In- it the rin0 may gensrally ‘, volon.tary one, be rooovered; other- vise not.

In rlsw the Songolng authorltles, It Is apparant that, no oategorioal answer 08n be glvon to your qua&ion. The gene&xl rules above 8MOUOOOa should be Or some 888fStftZ&OO to ln astermIning whother or not the Sine and oost, ma bo YOU the facts an i air- rsaovared in a partloular ease, under all j- samstanoes sonnaoted thorwith.