History
  • No items yet
midpage
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
O-2002
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 1940
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE Arro’lp&SY ,GENERAL OF TEXAS A&IN

-norable GeorgmR. Shemrd

Cmst~l~erlaf Pub110 Aooounts

I /c,, /i Dear Sir!

forged endorseniant? thie departnsnt on orlzed to lsaue owner of an 1 warrant 113 and is neither lort aor dam- poeaeaaicm of whioh is pur- by the bank tmm the true owner the bank has previously paid n afzilse or forged lndortmwnt?

er you to Article 4666, R. cII 61.‘ also to your opinion nu$bered O-898.

*This request im mede wf%‘n referenos to warrant6 other than unemploymmt ormgensation warrante .(I

Axtiole 4366, Vernon*6 lnnOtated Oiril Stat&Ate,.

made as followe:

Honorable George H. Sheppard, Page 2

*The Comptroller. when satisfied that any original warrant drawn upon the State Treasurer has been lost or destroyed, or when any oertifi- cats or other evidence of indebtedness approved by the auditing board of the State hae been lost, Is authorized to issue a duplioate uarrant in

lieu of the original warrant or a dupllaate or a copy of suah certificate, or other evidence of Indebtedness In lieu of auoh original; but no

such duplicate warrant. or other evldenoe of ln- debtedness, shall lrsue until the appllcrant ha6 filed piith the Comptroller his aftidavit, stat- ing that he Is the true owner of' suuh instrument, end that the same is In raot lost or destroyed, and shall also file with the Comptroller his

bond in double the amount of the olaim with two or more good and aurfleient sureties, payable to the Governor, to be approved by the Comptrol- ler, and oonditioned that the applicant will

hold the State harmless and return to the Comp- troller, upon demand being made therefor, such duplicates or ooples, or the smount of money

named therein, together with all ooats that may acorue against the State on oolleoting the same.

After the issuance of said duplicate or oopy

if the Comptroller should asoertaln that the same was improperly issued, or that the applissnt party to whom the same was Issued was not the

owner thereot, he shall at on08 demand the

return of said duplioate or oopy it unpaid,

or the amount paid out by the State, IP so

paid; and, upon iallure of the party to return same or the amount of money dalled.for, suit

shall be instituted upon said bond in Travfe

eountyi'

We quote from Texas Jurlsprudenoe, Vol. 34, page 636, as followsr

*A state, munioipal, aounty, district or school warrant is an instrument, generally in

the form of a bill of erahange order, drawn by an officer upon the person having cherge of the public funds, directing him to pay an

amount or money speciried to the person named, or his order, or to bearer. In substanae war- rant.% are mere promises to pay the amount

Honorable George H. Sheppard, Faze 3

specified; they are not bonds, nor are they

negotiable instruments; they are only priaa

facie evidenoe of an indebtedness, serving

aa the oonvenient mode of conducting the pub- lio*a business."

Article 4365,.aupra, defines the extent and linita- tlon of the power of the Comptroller of Fubllo Aooounta the State of Texas to issue duplicate warrants. The statutes of the state sre silent upon the authority of the Comptroller to issue duplioate warrants exoept in the express lnatenoe of loss destruction. Consequently, where a warrant la still goayaatence the Comptroller ho8 no authority to issue a dup-

.

In our opinion No. 0-3S5, it was held'thst: *It is our opinion that Article 4365 prohibits the lsauanoe of a duglioate warrant where the loss or destruction of the origl- nal has not boen called to the attention and provad to the aatiafaotlon of the Comptroller In the menner provided In said statute."

Under the faota and olrcumatsnoes stated in your letter, we are of the opinion that the proper 2rooedure would be for the owner of the warrant in question to Institute pro- ceedings for the possession of the warrant egainat the perty holding said warrant rrom him.

In vfew of the forgoing, your question is reapeo- tively answered in the negative.

Trusting that the toregoing @il.ly answers your ln- quiry, we remain

Yours very truly ATTORNEY GX?U?%L OF~kAS Dy -ML

Ardell Piilliama Assistant oPlNmN c co~Mnr88 APPROVED tw-

Case Details

Case Name: Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Court Name: Texas Attorney General Reports
Date Published: Jul 2, 1940
Docket Number: O-2002
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Att'y Gen.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.