Case Information
*1 ‘. OFFICE OF ‘PHE A?TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUcrIN
Boaorable Julian bZontgom.rj
State Hi hwa$ Engineer !I
Auafin, “OXa
1940, Sor a supplemental opl
eartin, Ina. You refer UQ t
ton on this olalm, which or1
questionl
h W, B. Pope, Aaefstant 6 above request adrlsed the Hon. lnear, the Stats of Texas 1937, the shove opinion was reoonsiderfiid ho Eonorabld W. B, Pope, and he again ua that you have oonsidorable data and in- formation in your files relative to this claim, but in view the raot that we cannot detonnlne quostions of faot wo will not be oonoerned in this opinion with that Information and will ~oonfine this opinion to the iaots ea set out in the original request and the tinding of the Board ot Arbltratlonr *2 8011. JUliaIt ~Ollt~Ollhy, &‘fl&O [8]
Tho ~usstloa to be dsternlncd 4s whathar tho Stnto T:oxne 1s liable for the ootli of aeento vrt:on actlnC outaide fto eoope of thalr outhorlty, bQ,ing conferred such autb@rity elthor by law or by acntreot: Thora it ncthlnc in the etntutoe that t&o fort& tho powero arid duties eEte.i?.iG:)oot en&-Inear or inspootor. h nlll, thefoforo, disouoo tbo Guoeti,cn only me It porialna to tho outhorlty and ymor oqnforrod by oontrcot. It ;a ths genorul rulo thst when a Stats .ts a parby to a eontreot with e altlton, it la subjoot to al.]. and svory ooadltlon eovsrc- lag oontraots with ladividuale. Uortlok WJ. U. E., 94 D. 2. K5; hsadlne &ml Co. ts. U. 9., ZM3 U. 6. 185, 69 L. L,d. 9071 Crook VB* u. s., 91 U. S. i%l9, E3 L. Rd. 037. But thicr rulo is subject to oartain oxcaptlono, Sor if the State undertcok to guaruntoe tha tldollty of lta agent6, it .would Boon bcocm in~ol~.pob in tha ondleoe o~barraoonent, diftloulty cm4 100808, which would bo oubvorniro to pub110 Intorest. ztory on kcpaoy, In tho oaeo of Clodselter Vn. Ztota, 00 f!. Carolina GPO. 319. 64, 41 m. Rep. 440, Chloi Zuatloe &ith tiuotos with approval the, folloutlna :
Whet the dootrine of rospondaat OUpQriOr, applloablo to tho relotlon of prlnclpnl ond ny;cnt oreatod betwoen other pmnona, does .po,! pravall acalnat the oovorelgn in tho noosus~;ry omployznnt of pub110 aeonto, 1s too well oat lnd iqzo~ authority end praotlce to n4dt ‘0s oontrom k * djY”‘^’ Vo govcmnont hcs aver held 11.eble to in- or umuthorlzod iteolf dividuaia for tbo mlformnoo, leohso, oxeraisc powar by ito otfioere md 8~oa~8.~’ - ~~~~~~~- 16 ours)
I Ae rovcolcd by the r’o6uaot, the con-plaint 18 for noto oomlttod wcutaldo of a ‘oontrectia It 10 ~ioll sottl.od let; ttnt statea onn be bound only by nuoh oots me ore oonr”crrsd by lclw ’ The zest reosnt oaso that bears on the quoo-. or by tha contmot. tiou 10 that of Com?boll Eulldlna CO. VU. Stete iioed CODZI~SS~O~, 70 FCC. ,(Zd) 057. ‘~ht3 r0110d3g quotction0 818 tak00 mffi WIT- motions indicated:
*Go thank that the enginoor hod no outhorlty to h-elva on behalf of the atato the roCuirbaonto in the witton aotitroot., iio undoubtedly hod no euth- ority to enter into e now or dlfforcnt oontmot, end it would follow that he bed no authority to nelvo the one* Tha oontraot aptt0iri.0a what provision8 inthlr, *3 lion* Julian iontgomery, Qogs S
hfs dutlco nnd 3owar8 wore nrd this we0 viol1 known to the ccntrnctor. At 18 @clsro y hl!L d mat 1m architoot or an&vasr In oharce OP construotlon work to waive a prov,Islon rspulr- Qooa not have outhorlty lng written extra work ordam.” ;3ubooatIon E2.
*Uo otata o¬ be’h&l ior tho cota or its qngfacor boyorld tho powers ccnCorrc4 by laar or 4he ~ub8octIon i!2. wrlttfs corGraot2
Vhe etate cannot be hold for any auoh aotlonn by Ito cniployees, even If true, for the rooooa It OUT. bo hold only on the ccntrnct end for tho cots or ito a~3nts end ot~fioinle purnutrnt to th* cc-.ntracfL end not Car uny unauthorized cr ~:;a.liciouo ccnciuct, vhlch my have resultod ,in domge.” tiulmootron 50. (UnCcraoorIng ours)
In tha 0088 of Clark County Ccnstrtiotlon Company vs. Stats Iilahway Cocmisslon, B8 8. c’. (q!Aa3qk,, .(ct. of pppa. iip.) Court said:
#ti . . 50 f%kt thero IP ‘a groat oontrarffy and confusion of oplnlons reapootin~ som phoma the pueotlon prssontod, howover, thore iD yructloal acre+ tent of authority that nnrono who doale or ooutracto sltb tiubllc officials or with sub110 b&loo :zuet at h1s ok p>rIl take notice th,ir cutborlty they nlnce W&O; only vrithln tha limits of ‘~-sF~~)owY~ or noo-
i y irqG.iod poiioro cu:)r’errod up2n ttiw by Icw.~ c iihnre it Is required by atntuta that ouch cont%‘sholl be in wrLt:ag and the controot Itnelf provldoa that any modIliontIon of its tormn shall be ouch provInIon8 am cmCet.ory and cl1 in writing, ohangoa find ultcrotione aro lnotfectual and void.
Ckppollont In dsalinc nIth the Cor&soioner oi Yubllo bonds rzao not only o!larcc& tilth knaxb%l~n of the law end of any and all lleltotlccs plaood upon his pco;or to make or r.odffy the contrect, but the guotod provisions or tho contraot 1tqol.C brought notIoe to It that all aodlfloatione, altorotlono end chansoa ohould be In nritlng. In rhoGO provfafons,uro lancuaee 80 olmplo, olenr and orplloit that QVQI~ a.lay- man by cursory sxomlnatlon would be sblo to fully understand and appreolata tho ooneoquoaaeo or a dlrr- rdggrd or vlolatlon therOof@
Bon. Julian L:oontgomery, page 4
“The foroeoinp rules to which .&&all adhere are nelthor harsh or .inoqultablo since nnyono doal- -inn with public ofl’lcinlo or publio bodl ca ma y ovofd the oonsequsncos by strict com.pllnnce with them.
‘hey are moundad in a somd pub110 policy anti their abrogation would invite fmud, collusion and uniiar- ranted expcndlture of pub110 funds.” (Underscoring
A oomprehonslro dlecuaalon of tne effect or an.ageat aotlng out&da the eoopa of his authority la found Inthe oaaa OS hbum vs. State, 141 Pac. 314; the SuPreme.Court of tho State of Washington hold aa iollovve,
“Their (the englneer’a) powere are only such aa ara usually possessed by mere supcrvlaing engineare and archltects;.tbat la,, to 8ee that the contract entered into by the ownor with the contractor la Dro- perly carried out. They are In no sense contracting agents of the state. heading the, allegations annellont*s comolaint and the provlolono of the con- t%ot and speol?lcatlona together, we think appellants olalm na hero pleadod amounts to nothing more than that engineer, and poselbly the highway commlssloner, verblally requlred,the pcrfonnnnce of this alleged extra work. Clearly, this would not bind the state to-pay for suoh work, even concoding that It Is extra work wblcb the contract contemplated might be paid for if ordered In the mannor therein ex- presaly provided, .ln view of the fact that neither the highway com~lasloner nor tho cn&m?n possessed the Dower to blnd the state In any other manner than that-which the contraot Droscrlb?~ +.G:Xt. I.3 also plain from the aliegaq Eiona of the complaint that the work wa8 not direated to be done aa extra stork, but was directed to be done by the engineer and claimed to be.
work within the contraot nhlch was to be compensated for by the payment. of the lump Burn bid. If, a8 a matter of fadt, the work ma extk”nork vflthln the.
terms oi the oontraot which would call for extra oomp9nsatlon, and the, engineer or highway commlssloner arbitrarily decided that appolianta should perform such work aa a part ‘ot his oontraot, such Saot night bo oause for appellant retualng ,to ao perform It wlth- :out forfeiting ~hla rights under ,the oontraot; but. it ~uoulti not foll6w that appellant could reoover *5 .
ROD. Julian 'Pontgomary, pace 8
eompaneatlon for such work sftor#performlag 8m.e when it wee not directed by the i\l~h.r;cy oozmioelonor in the manner prbeoribod bp the oontreot. ;i,e do not _ think the alleeatlcns of the oonplaint show that the atate hlshway board, the atate’s oontraoting agent, in any manner dlreotcd or suthorlzed the performnco of any uork othor than by the express terms of the 6ontreot .w (Undersoorlng oure) 1
It 18, theraforre, our oplnlon that the Stoto of Texas 1s not liable for the sots of lte agents which are ooaslltted . outalda the sgope l oontraot nhlohtsete~S+h their butler
end authoflty.
Trusting thet'the io’regolng i@ly answer@ your inquiry, ~urari’
Youre rery trily Assiotant t. .I