Case Information
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
38: tiOE. iW.rea ‘nado, pa$@ e
agents, or othmwiae, for the aonstruotion ar re- paiT OS my bridge, TOaC, 6treet, alloy or h.OUaC, any other work undertaken by such oounty, . . , shall bsoopla interestad in any bid or proposal for surh woxlc or in the puraharo or rale of ax+hiog ma&o for or an aoaount 0r ouah 3ouJlty . . . or who ahall ooztraot r0r or rsoeiv~ any money or property, or the repreeentatlv6 of 6ith6r, or any amlummt or ad- vantage whataoevu in aouaidaration 0r ouoh bid, pmpoaal, aontraat, purohaso or 6616, hs ah6U ba fi;zrt:z 1066 than fifty nor sOr6 than biro hundred R
. I56tifoatiy, th6 ;legl6latur6, in anartiag the at%., int8adad thawby to protoot QOunti66, oltios and town6 tram ~fl6ia3 peoul6tion. 3Juoh peau- htion was the etil nought to be aupprlraaod) and the ntatute strike@ at the veq root of the evil, by lnaking it an oftwas* for any ortiou of a county, city ox town to ba0oma interested peauniarlly In aattuo #hfmin apoh ~orpomhti~na tkm paounlarily m0r0680a. Tbs purpoos c$ aueh statute is to prerant oiYlola1 *rings* troa being fomeU an4 ag(nrated ho pray apan the treaauxioa of aountloa, altflrs and tom61 to prowmE ,the orrioua aplch borpomtions from’ ualng t&s&r oSfioiaL kn0~164ga -4 influanae t0 thOiT individual peounlmy adrantags ln the flnanolal tranr- aoti0r.u such. The object6 of ths atatute w&M be but paztlally ~attainsd 51 6ush offioaro ara to bo per- mitted to deal with their aor$oratlona in the rak and purohuo OS propaFty. . .
In the Rigby aaao a uounty aommisaioner waa uonvioted ot selling a pair oi mu146 to 00kiAtY. It ia our oplnian tibet -the objaots of the atatute would be but prtiallp attained” ii a county coma&erionsr could ~6611 his personal ssrvloas rather iYe aa~ peraelre M r(uLao6 whr a WuntY oom- then his ohattela. tisaionu should ba pemitted to 6011 hi6 Labor or prof666fou61 service to hia county, aurd yet ba denied tho privllegr of aolling goode, ware8 and aerOhaAai684~ In the oaae of Coroutt v. Clay County, (Tax, Give Appoc 899, suit was brought by a foram OountT
1934) 76 6. $. (aa) Ron. Palree WM, Q&$e 5 o oasle*ioner l ualast Clas County to reoover 0595 alloge to be
duo hla for the uee aS I truok cnne4 hlr an4 we4 Sor the LIEdit Gr the 8OUnty *h&la he 1118s a 0OWSty ~d8dOnOr Ot thst CGLuAtg. Both the trfsl oourt cur4 the Court OS Civil &9- pssla Qenisd reoovery. Ye guot.4 et %engtih Iron the opinion Juzstlce Leello:
alloge that the tnaok warn ueoA Sor thr OS oount]r wltb the kmwle&e aad aoqul*rcrmror “In [954] prrt OS the prt1t105 the rp@el&nt baetit OS the other member8 OS thw oeurt. In ?ousdng paragraph he J&L(er t&et rinse the oourt qgrorb to the Justice or the &r&e in so far 8a the value or the wrvloer LB oanoenMl tha oln&m thrrebr beowao *aa rooctunt #tatod. It tin&8 l p- pew8 that th0 appellant wa8 attempting rwwer a5 l th*r an impl$*d o r up re*r mntWOtr T h*r o ~owldbr no irpli&A Qommbt:for oontnot# &xe not
lir4 la eontreventioa OS tha~lau urd~.pubUo PO w* Yor tbe me re8soa there wa8 no, uprem i"pi ’ 8oatamt.
-A... lntereated ik any oontr8ot ror the puroheae 8ny dmt order in tmasumr 0r uoh
ocunty . . . or or;y ot&er dabt, claim em demand, aball be fine4 not lem than ten nor more Gn*tsor;ty timer thr naount of the order. . .* Drum ttcr, Soregoing, it is obviooe tbef the agpaltiant'c aleSs, (LB aisolo~e4 by hi8 plosd- .,. LnfJ lo @&lrt tte law a&4 pub110 polloy. Any
oh~m on the part OS euoh pub110 orfloial thet
redo upon any uharrotor OS oontraot batuson him- 081s ard the owzty tiiak he has morn to 8tme, aA ou@t IS ObnGXiOU4l to Sounb publlio POliOy b6 l nr o r oed. :i% ether ba~la oS liability 5ewt n8 arrerted the pibiY&tirrr %aeh oleine, or purprte4 OoLtraota, are raid en* uaeriSorc4abla. %xJc;eadeQ 4orxaent u9m the prlaolple~ or law involved is u5500bamr~JI~ In aQ<lori to authorl~lrr above oiOa4 -ioh t&s ju&mrit of t&c trial uourt, the i ;:!.g ramant , Scllotirg &4d?tlonel authorltlrr are cited~ Enlppa vr Stertart iron \Yorka (Tex. Clt.,,Ap&) 46 b. YI. 52.2; X3, C. Kesd, Ix'r, 0. 5~4 &faith, 40 Ter. 899; ME;by v. 3Eote l!V Tcs.‘App. Ilb, I9 $9 X. 940; SOU COUtl jUUg*, Ve lrOrbUOk
at al. ('Ees. cit. E 9.) l84 9. Q. slq Lo err' couot~y v. Bdrrardo, E 06 Ey* 85, f66 8. li'. 819s keXa$n et al. t. Xiiller Coaty 180 Ark. BpB, 85 8.. w'. (ltd) 664; %tate ax so i . Citimsa' Or fowreneeburg ve Pefkinaw, 159 Temaq 446, 1.) 5.
Ir'. ma) a.*
In a letter oylnlcn to the county attorney OS YOUI& County thlr Qeprrtdnt he16 on July 18, lOSO, that oount oosmir~ionerr i Oannot be paid an? o&m ooropulmation by ths'oeun 7 tor their 4xoapt thet proriard b7 law for their ~enio~r SB 6cmices oounta ooPisllesioner8 avon tbou&i performing umo OS th* butler a rod aqwnlnt&utr In view or the ebote suthtwltiee, en4 the rerronlng in support of the oeeea UlewasaeA end oiOe4 n agree with tho opinion readore by you oc April 15 ld ~~4 srddroaaret! to your aounty fudge, 009~ OS which yea! Surn~rhe4 ue: Itie our
.-