You further state in your letter of September 12, %n the 11th day ot September, 1939, the Con&s- .h, BiOLWC8' court passed an ocdsr whereby it xas QUthor&ed UrplOO a lawpsr to represwt the three preoinota in Blanao OoWItf in the above mentioned law sPit to be peld out of uowlty mand8.” The question you ask 1~ as foll~war

"18 thu County authorized to employ counsel fn a '/ ease of this Mn4.snd pap his .res out of County ms7y:. Cur answer to yOur queatIon is that the Com&&onsrs* COPrt Of Blanoo County is authorized to employ oounsel ln a easa kLn6 to represent the Comm5.esionersV Court nnd to pay Of-this htef~ 00t 0f 00unty fya6.

In the cam of City Natlonel Dank of Austin v. Primltlio sa s. %. 775, it nap held t&at the Cdssioners* Court uounty, vn8 adhorizea to hire oouhsel to represent the CommSs&ouers* @art %n a suit ahioh was brought against the County 3udge amI th* Oonnissloners to enjofn alleged i&legal aotlon of the Wm.im- ~d01~0r8* t-art ~IXXVMIOYSO~; tb 00utf'aSat 0r PXWJ~MO c0wy Davis to Nanga. The court held that while t&a suit ft0aFort mS 0tinal.l~ against the defetiante as individuals, it was d@rigPQ to oontrol the performanoe oi their offioial sots, and wa8 a matbsr. of oonpem to the oounty. In thls~oonneo- .awerore oourt sa1d.r tibnths

While it was nominally a ault against them as indl- viduals, lte'design and effeot maa to obstruot aad oontrol the prr0rrrmnoa 0r their oAY'ilcia1 acts,~ and we are not disposed to hold In suoh a oaae t&t they muat 30 nothiry5 toward6 defendin+; such stilt, or must miploy connael. at .t&Lr i)~in expense. They had power .,to employ oounael,~and.~o defray the reasonable orpenm thereof out of the county x32nd8.~ The court also held that the right to employ OouMel us not dependent upon whether the order Or the Cok!&stiOners' Court uhiC!i was under attnok was valid or invalid. On thl.6 point oourt suid:

"The validity of their acts was not afl‘eoted by the faot tbnt they were dot8ken. or thhf there was an adveree de&slon of the question. It baas beon fre- quently herd thet the poaar cannot be measured by 'auoh a rule.W

The disposition 0f that partion Of the Count3 rOad and bfidge fund oon&stin(S of automobile Ee&Stration fees iS 00n- trolled by &tiole fit375a&Cor the kevisvd Civii Stat\ltes, and is *3 Eoaorabls v. B. war, Page a

a~ttel~mbiohlio~withfntb jurldiotlon #the

& UhtribWifoA of the autmobl1.o rq#atratLon f&8 to the oouaty road md bii@e fund is a hatter ot bmio~.

~OM@TD to the aty. Tha suit in'tha Dirtriot C6urt tr a muitl to rr8traiA tb OouAt Ju4Jp end ths oosmlssloAerr in thm pmforran~ofthdr ofrio al Urrtioa. Wearm thenfonoftk I

opbdon that the Ommieolo~~?8* Omit has thm autborit~to hk-8 In thm malt nfomd ooum8el to PeprmmAt the OawAls~iomrr' ootut tclryour latter. It I~wallnttledthatths ooankniaaord ooh~tohava.thmpouer toUroaortnacb]:to nprwent theoouaty trr .aatten ainotly aoaoara the @@aaty Maam vr busixwm. 8O*grt, m 'M. 888, 860 81 Wq bl8t 86&=8tOA' @Ilit 1. -@Wh6A, 880 6. W. SSO0)Ct~bma va Dads, SS6 SC We 8088 Wuan-Warpea Yublbh- ii= a. Vc 8UwA 48 8. w. (86) 6% &AAtf, ml80 the ~&ullJ io agab tin Qaraiod.oAmr** omxro,

l WEd%4'to tb tie@ltiOABiAtb ~tiOA,td#inoOtb &pow of tha ault ,&a to rt an&do or mvlao am opde~ of the mt @tOtilt& iA. it8 CbfiOial OaPflatty, NO d0 AOt ~8dOAOd klievo that the raot that oaly thrme nmmbmra dr the ctxmdeaioaer~~ Court are aado doimldaat8 wauld affaot the right of tlNOoaf&e- 8iolmr8'GourttoeaQlg8poeial oowmoltoreprooenttbeC~* aloaord court.~ the eontraotofaaplo~nt howevervmlbhave be a ooatnot to rcrp~AOAt tho 0nmniaelon4srs* court arrl not a oontraot to represent three preoinota whose oomieeionerr 82yt namd as deetendants; othervdee,,rrs do not believe that thrrre would bm any lawful autborlty to,oxpenfl Funty funds iOr the hiring Of Thor attorney.

Very truly your0 aEfmzAL OF T'lexAs AT&WI&