Case Information
*1 Q
w. OFFICE OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS \ - AUSTIN
honorable Char . Eempbill
County Auditor
Upton county
Rankin, Tens
Dear sirt
fr+r letter of J
opinion or tl¶l6 doper
reada 6s f0110Vlt
aab’Brldge Warrants were to be funded OLI Hovem-
ber 9, 19@. In acaordance with the oontpaot
dated 13, lg’ri? 8aid bonds uedpe to beep Interest at the sate of 4$ and vece to mature in a period not over 8i.z yeaw* Fhia inten- tion referred to chspter 163 of the Aots of the *2 ., n Honorable Chaa. Reaphill, page 2
Regular Seemion or the 47th Laglalature, Rouse
Bill 153. Theme bonda Were never issued due to
the fact that an injunotion ult vaa rmd in
the Matrlot Court vhioh restrained alonere the Comaala-
fr081 iaauing auuh bonda. It appears that quite a lar)le number of varranta which
were to have been lnaluded in the funding deal
vere issued Illegally.
“I will appreoiate row opin.ion on the follovingt
Is tha oontraat dated 13 1940 never advertised nor aubmlttei to (shie?~aa
competitive biddIng) legal @nd binding upon the
Court.
Nil1 the wuranta uUeh are outatmub l.ng, ::*a leegsl fidebtedner; of the Oountr if
it la found that they wem llle&ally issued, and on same be refused upOa praaenta- oould paplent t1oR.”
Apparently 700~ PaiS@ the question as to the valid- ity of the oontraot under ooualderation beomae such eon- traot iraa not let by oorpetitive bids. We do not have be- fore ua oontraot mentfioned in JOUP letter, therefore, Ve expreaa no opinion am to the validity of ueh eontraot, ex- oept that oontracts-of the nature involved in thla came in- volving special l kill experience, are not wlthln the ooatemplat5.on of the statute am to oum titlve blda. (Gulf Bltalithio Company v. Iiueoea Gounty, 1 Y S. Y. (2d) 305; Houston v. Potter, 91 9, Y. Hunter v. Uhlteaker, 203 8. W. 1096; Douglas v. Hyrlck, 159 5. N. 4223 Qlbaon v.
Da~la, 236 9. Y. 202; Tsokett v. llddleton, 280 8.Y. g8gt Walboe v. Cormaiaaionepa~ court, 281 S. W. 593; loper v.
Hall, 280 8. 21. 289; city 01’ Houston v. Wooer, 89 S. Ii. 4260 &tlole 2368a, Vernon’s Annotated Civil dtatutea; Texas Jurisprudence, Volume 11, pags:.642.)
It la stated in Texas Jurlapmdenoe, Volume 11, ,paee 6421
“The statute requiring th8t oontrfuxta shall be let by oompetitive bids la eonatrwd am apply-
ing only to work rhleh la oompetltlve in its
nature; It does not control ooaaaiaaioneral
Xonorable ahas. F. EemxkhllL page 3
court in contraoting for l ervloea requiring ape- oial aklll, abllit~, or teohnioal 1eamlng. Hw- ever, It ham been lntlrsted that a oontraot vlth for plea and l ervloea lu l uperlntend- arohitecte ing the ereotlon of a building is within the terma of statute. . . .’
Zn view of foregoing ~00~ are respeotfully ad- vised that It la our opinion that the above mentioned oon- tcaot is not invalid beoauae it vaa not let by competitive In other vorda, 6ontraota bids. involving apeuidl~4r.lll, learning are not within the contempla- ability, or teohnical tion OS t&a statute am to oompetltlve~blda. Fha iaot that the oontract under aonaideratlon vaa not let by ooaqmtitlve bids does not Invalidate it.
lflth refermoe to your l eo ond Queatlon you axe advised that IS the outstanding warrantlasntlomd by you, were illegally issued, l u6h vumata are void md net a valid obligation agalrmt tlae oounty. Bowever, it la to be understood that we express no opinlcin to the validity of l ueh varranta ainae we have no inforratlon Whatsoever pew In aonneation with what ve have
to auoh werranta. hereto ore maid, ve foe1 it proper to state that we express ta’““f no 0 lnion ae to the 118billty the oofmtf to pay a rea- mom le valua for the aervlo~a~ goods 09 uroheadl.ae or g whatever vam obtained bj the oounty by reason or maid mar- rants.
In oonmatlaa with your eoond question what ve have heretofore maid v6 dlreot four attentloa to our opin- ions Hoe. O-2880 and O-4558, aopiea of them opinlolu am nolored herewith.
Yours verr truly Aaaiatmt AH:db
Rwloaurea