Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN cou@ty

Hanomble P.T. chumh@m

Auditor

uavarro couaty

CorBioana, zemr

Dear sir1

been reoo1v.d and we quot* frou youl- requert a8

thl8 ratter. be liable for hia hoe r bl5lr or voul.4 he ba orpital and do&or bill. as axpen of OfftOe urd (I yealr'm eamlngcl?" 51, Artlole 3, of our Fsate Conrtltlltion, "The L&datum 8Mll brre no pcmr mke any grant 0~ autharlr~ the mddng of w grant of publio money to w UdlvtduaX, ame- ciatlon of iadlvhItslr, musd$ipal. Of other oorporationa lrhat8oever...~'

HOnorable E.P. Cumla@am, Page 2

seotlon 52, ArtI 3 0f bur atate comtitutim,

deolarest

"The Lsglslature shall have a0 p0ver to authorlxe any oouuty, olty, ton, or other politi- sal oorporatlon or subdlvlslan of ths State to lend its or&It or to grant pub110 money or thing of Value in aid of, or to any lndlvidul, assoola- tlon or oorporation vhatsoever,

Seation 53, Artlole 3 of ollp State Donstitutlon, dsolaresr

"The4 Lsgfslature shall ham n0 povor grant, or to l uthimiss urg oountr or munIalpal authority to grant, sny sxtra oompensatlon, is8 or allovanoe to a publla oifioer, agsnt, servant or oontraotor, after 81~rviee has been rsndered, or a mntraot baa basn ontemd into. and psrfione l d In vhole or In part; nor pay nor authorlss ths paymant of, any alala cawted agalnat any OOUILQ or munlolpality of the State, uadar any agresmsnt or 00ntra6t, mad8 without authority of lav."

It 18 fundamsatal lav that the oom518slowrs1 00urt 18 a oourt of limitsd PclsdIotlon and ha8 only such pavers as are oonferrsd upon I t by ths Conititution and rtatutes of Hovard, et WC vs. Ebad8rson Oounty, et al, this at&e. a?Jf (28) 479.

Opinion Ho. O-779 of this depwtaent neither the oountynorthe ~~adprsoinats of ths oountyhavs authority to oarry smploysr*s liability lnsuranoe for the plloteotlon of road workmen of the 00unty.

OplnIon lo. o-2136 of this depaftment Esals vith

the question vhether or not tlrr oorai8iloners' oourt has t and authority pay a @WS fOol. Wss r8sultM ik81~t. _ death 0r ~11 eqployssl of the 00untJ in a sollisIon Y-i!! vhile on his way to work for the c~uety. Ths OplnIc~~ holds that the ooml88ioners* aourt mnnot I.ogally pay the 0laIm.

9pIni0n Ho. 04%~ of this departrsnt holds that

the comals810nerst Oourt xsay not legally expend Oounty funds E

Honorable E.Y. &muiaPhrl, h8s

for the hospitalltation of a Deputy %herlff shot vhlle in line of duty.

Opinion &I. O-2473 of tN8 dspartmnt the oounty is not llable Por psrsonal in&rise of raad hands woelved while employed by the oounty.

Ws bre snalosing hsrevZth oapies of the 6bote man- tloned op3nlons for your oonvsulsnee.

Artlols 3899(r). Vernon*8 Annotated Clvll Statute8 Te%%s, deals with the expense aooouats of fee offlearn. The wee of %tate vs. Carnss, 106 %Il (26) 397, in aonstroing said artiols as ammdsd in 1933, held that ths sxpsnsss, otbm than those expenditurss la oomestion with automb~les, vhish sn officer is authoMsed to olaim as deduotlons, am limited to statlomlry, st%mps, t010phoas, Clwsllllg sxpsnsss, and other al&law nsoweary expunswr the rukoi ejusdsa generis bslng applied to qualify ths gonsral kan8ua88 by ths spsolally emusrated itasa snd to restriot its ammIng to expcmsss oi the saw kind and oharaoter.

In vlev of the foregoIng authoPltiw you ar8 Pwpwt- fully advissd that It is ths apinion of this dspaHmsatr

1. The county la not Uabls for rush hospital~xatloa and dootor bills and ths aamsissious?s~ oaurt is vlUmut authority expend oounty funds for the pa-t of saw.

2. Buoh hespital and doolmr bills mumat bs le&ly

oo~l&red as "expe~w of offies" md oant~~t be legally ds- duoted as such by ths saustablo. APPROVEDDEC 11, 1940

WJFlAW

HNcLoatrmr .

ATTORNEY GiCNERAL 03' TEXAS