xtrrbe BIL a0949 not have to be J ~~~~~~t~~~~~~ ,you OpWon above lease *ime nekhiah or these authorities ~~u.l be.fo~$n&. In 80 far as. I have bean able to‘det&aine ybur @pinion haa never been, by youl' dspakgman~, m&iridd or reverse&n \ / ,/' w& &f&on No. o-2972 was written we aarefullg

aonsidered thss~xoagee of Harris County v. Hammond et al., 8. ;q. 445; Blnford v. Harris County, 261 8. ?I. 535; Nolan County v. Yarbrough, 34 5. ‘:f. (2) 302, and the authorities cited therein and reaognized that these cases held, anon& other things, that the fifteen cent8 p~OVid0d iOF under sea- tion 1 or Mticle 1040, Vernon's Annotated Code of Crlninal Procedure, did not oonstltute a fee of ofiioe that had to be aooounted ror as suoh. i!owever, in view of Artiole 3891, *2 Honorable E. H. Griffin, Page 2

Vernon’8 Annotated Civil Statutee, as amended sinae the opfn- ions in these aaaoa were rendered, whiah provides in part:

“. . . .

-The compensation, llniitationa end maximuma &rein fixed ahall also apply to all lees and oompensatlon whatsoever oollaotsd by said orii- oer8 in their ofriolal oapaaitp, whether account- able as fees of ofrioe nnder the present law, and any law, general or speofal, to the oontrary is hereby expressly repealed. The Only kind and charaoter or oolapensatfon exempt from the provi- sions of this Aot shall be rewards received by Sheriffs for apprehension of orimlnals or fugi- tives from juatioe and for the reoovery of stolen property, and moneye reoelved by County Judges and Justloes or the Poaoe ror performing marriage oere- monies, whioh sum shall not be aooountable for and not required to be reported as feea of office.* ‘xe wero of the opinion that the above quoted terms of this statute (Artlole 3891, supra) were ..knolusive to the extent that in order for fees to be exempt thereunder, thq must be .speOlfiOally exaluded. (See the oaaea or I?iohole v. Galveston County Supreme Court, 228 3. 71. 547 tnd Ellie Coun- ty T. Thoapaon, 46 9. 3. 49). As later stated -in the aase of Taylor et al. 0. BrowatoP Couatp, l44 5. W. (21 314, It was our oplnlon that *the change in the staute rather broadens t&n.restrlots what are to be determined otflaial fee& Art- lole 3891, I1. S. 1925, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, Art- lale 3891". (Sate aaae or Nueaea County v* Curington et al., 162 S. W. 687). However on February 16, 1942, artier our opinion No. G-2972 was written, the Court or Citil Appeals or Texan, at Amarillo, in the o&se of %WUniiep v. Callings- worth,County et al., 159 S. t?. (2) 234, expressly held that the ~lowanaos to sheriffs ror sare keeping or prisoners un- der Section 1 of Artlolo 1040, Vernon*a Annotated Code oft Crlm- inal PNoeanre, do nat oonstitute fees or offloe but are mere perquisites or orriae ror which the sheriff is aocountable to no one. It will be noted that this oase further holds that profit8 made under Seation 2 Of Artid@ loids sUPI%, relating to the allowanoea to a sherirr for the support and mintenMOe of prisoners should be reported a8 “fees of ofiioe*.

.

Honorable E. H. Griffin, Page

Te think the opinion of the oourt in XooXfuley v. Collingeworth County et al., supra, should be followed un- til the Supreme Court holds to the costrsry. Thererore, our opinion Xo. O-2972 ie expressly overruled and withdrawn,

This opinion is to be oonstruad as applyinq only to those counties wherein the county offioials are oompen- sated on a ree basis.

&sting tnat the roregoing fully enswers your in- quiry, we sre

Yours very truly $rdell Yilliams .$sslstant AX: mp