You rtate salary o? the oounty cudltsr of Grange Couty Is hzs.OG per month. Ylthout lnvaetlgatlng ccnsldering population said oouaty or the taxable valuation Of proptrty thcrt- Of, for the pui-po~tc of thtr apinlon ve issunc the aboorr statement to be oorraot. *2 _._

Honorable Y. 0. Sextoa, Pago a?

Tht OC8pOIi6OtlOcl Of pub110 OffIOtr6 IS riXt& by the Conrtitution and statutes. & o??loer mw not ala18 or reaoh an7 aoatf rlthout a law authorlrlag him to do to, sa& olearl? fixing the amount to whIoh he Is entItled. An offi- la l d6ItIon to that oec is not entitled to any oo8pene~lon uhloh hss been fixed by law for the performnot of the duties his offloe, even though the oosotnsatlon so fIxed Is un- or inadrquate. He 84 be requIrea b7 law to ptr- reasonable form s9eoI?lo

aerrloes or dlsohsrge uldlt~oaal 4utIes uhlch no oomptnsrtlon 16 providea. The obllgatlon to perform such eerrIoes 16 I~90846 as an Inoldent to off108 and offloor br his oooptanoe thereof is deemed to hart engaged to perform them without oomptnsatlon. (Terre11 v. XIng, 14 8.W. ted) 786; XoCalla v. CltP of F&okdale, W3 B.V. 664; Texas Jurlr., ,Vol. 31, 9. ml.)

Ae’alreadf mtntioaed, an 0ffIoer is not entItle reoelre any oomptnratlon for hi6 offlolal rertloee other

i for by law. He my not rt- thsn that vhloh has provided

CoYer from third persons oomptneatIon of an rot wlthla for tht ptrfomanoe

the 80094 of Rle 0??10lal duties; and effect rlll not be glren a oontraot whereby he Is to rtoeIve 0ount.J or fro8 taird ptreons a different, or a greater or less oomgtnsatlon his offlolal eertloes than that uhfch (Cz’OSbr County cattle Company 1. has been prtsorlbtd law. KoDtnitt, es1 8.W. 295; fasling T. Xorrie, 9 S.W. 759; Latti- more T. Tarrsnt County, 124 S.V. ~206; Gulf, C. and 9. 8. I. co. v. the, 27 8.U. 110.)

The dale of 8trIngtr 1. Franklin County, 123 S.V. 1168, hold6 in effsot that where the law fixes oompen6e- tloa which an o??loer Is to reot~re for given strvioes, or Im9oses upon him the autr of p~tcrformlag his serrloe vithout speoIfloally fixing an;J oomptnsatlon thtrefor, he osnnot lav- full7 oontraat or recelrt any other ECUrOt any additional oosptnsation. Ohio, in th6 oase Of 8Omtr6tt Th6 SUprtme court

Bank T, Edmond, 81 Northeastern Reporter, 641, glong other thIng8, hold6 In effect that public 9olIof and 6ouab morals should demand rtcsltt allkc forbid that a public officer #errice performd by hla in the dlsch6rge of official dut; any other or further remuneration or reward than that prcr- cribsd and allouad by lau. *3 If. P. Boxton, Page 3

Honorable

Ye quote Ruling Case L4w, Vol. 22, 99. 837-640, es rolloue: ?or extra oompensatlon of pub110

Wontnote offlosrs have adJudge void oa ground of pub- 110 90110~. Not only sre they forbIdden br oommon lsw reoelve extra compensation for their offloiel 6eniee8, but the oommon lam Is not Infrequently reInforcea constitutional prorlslons. . . . It 18 a prlnolple the oomion lsu that en offlasr ought not to take roney doing hi6 autf, but that he should perform hls OffIO~al dUtl68 wlthou& re- uard cc conptneetlon than such Is flxsd and allowed by law. Therefore a pub110 officer oannot rtoOfer ronptnration third portlee the performance of act8 within scope of hi6 official duty, even though the Pots were oerformtd at their rtquest, or though thtx may hare txprtaely promised to pay him. A proalst made under such clrc~stanoes is to public $olioy and cannot be tnforotd. contrary . . .

In view of the forer.dng suthorltles, your question, a6 nbort stated, Is answered In the negatlre.

Yours very truly ATTORNEY GEXRAL 0.F TKXAS Ardtll ‘illllams AStiEtaAt AW:db