Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

County Traaeurar to oifiaor for allegad asfars of certain P you are quits Lengthy, and,for opinion wo take the liberty to wuinariz8 rlor to 1931 the v0te.m of.Sha&fsl- horieed a oouuty wide bsnd ieeue. of the voter8 0r c~ about the ma8 tba Road Distiriot No.:.? oi.sald oounty authorlmd a baad issue of &3OO,OOQ. -Thla iaaney VW rot& ior tha pur- pose of building rosds, apparently under the provi- sions ai Artiole 3, Sec. 52 of the Constitution of Texas. It appear8 agreed that a?,ter the roads wars oompleted, thers~were several thousand dollars bal- anoa In aaoh oi suoh bond iunda. Part o? this mons~ was by order o? the oourt, on July 25, 1935, trdasfer- red from Shaaokelford County Bond Fund to tha General Fund of the county and part from Road District Ro. 2 Fund to thr: Road and Bridge Pund. An amount equal to *2 Hon. Thomas L. Bfantoa, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Pa@ 2 .

.., :' tha latter funds was on Augmt 7, 1957, ordered transrarrad to'th&..Cansral PuI1?'fiaim the $Qad. end Bridge FuudIL 4t-l-, ti#.af saahof those:trena- fen,~.tlia ~naraf..I'u+~r~r,.ererdrawn. .

Thera.reenn,mme 4lte on tha .faata bsfwem your stat&nta.,* yooor..l~it~r;Md,t~~,teottals 0r ~~farbrs ot . the Commisaitjaar8t’ Ceiiii$~~quo~.bj~pibu as to :rhether the bonds

and laterest, and obll&ions Sor whloh the bonds were ori& nzlly issued had been fully paid off .aad eatlafied atthe tiw we are no+ln posi- of said transfers.

the puqoae of this -(lj 'gas 'tho;tisdsieE‘ of July 2g,.iQSa,'&& &h&k- , I.. ^[1] _ -.- ! . elrord Coanty B~uX~.~~ to..the .*oe~r,rtl Fund* a legsl

_: trapeber~~' .: . . . ; _ .

"'(3). Z's8 the. ~&&a;bi Aqzust 7, 19&:&a 'Road and Bridge aund* to'.* *GeneraJ Fund' a legal.tramfer? V'. ._

"( 4)' If. abbd’tr&fk8 .+.. heli i.U.egel, would, 'th~,Cbunty Traaaorgi~.ha~i.~thority to ttisfer;~wlthout 'edorder of. .the'G~js$.otim!, C&t, an:a#l&.e)-etiaal to l that hbretoibrs transfirrid by the ordgr: Oz. oourt rrom *Road Dlstriof..I?b;.8 XII&*. to the 'Geimral Fund' from saW?Gbneral hind“ to 'Slnkibp IkId'No.2; Road Distrlot Wo.2")

ot the Commissionoia~.Court'hsio the autheritf.te treia- I? iar.irom the *General Rud! to 'Sluk3ng Pupd @6.Sc.~ amout equsl to.thr~ amount'~eratoion transfarrsd by the order of the Coart rrom tha lShaokeltord Coanty Bond .~ Fund' to the 'Ceaeral W$!?.. "(6) Is there &y ha!i.&al-llebiliy for-t&m trans- fers : (a) eon the part of'the'count. Judge, (b) on the part of the Cougty Cqnmissipner~. qnd:(c on, ths part QS , th@ r

County Treasuhir? " ., *3 Hon. &onms*L. Blanton, Jr., Feb. 4, 193e, Page 3 :

;,. ;,. "(7) Ia thue..in yaur~oplnlon, 01~11 liability for these "(7) IS thue..Fn yaur~oplnlon, 01~11 liability for these ..:J ..:J transfers: (a) on the part of the County Judge. (b) on (b) on transfers: (a) on the part of the County Jud e, the part ~of-ths County~Commlsalone.rs, ahd (oJ on the the part ~of ths County Commlsalone,rs, and (o k on the c c ,*-. ,: - ,*-. ,: - part .or the County~Troesurer? part .or the County~Troesurer? . . . . : : I. ~. I. ~. ,."(8) 'In the evsnt.tqe Oolamissioaars* Oour~~does not pass ti ordeP transferilng thd .,?uads,baok to.ths pmpcir funda, ~. what;ef$ion would.you advise trlis orriot to taka?"

Wlt&rsferimoe to the first three questions we hold all transrsre of 'such funds tu have b&m an Illegal dive&Ion thereor. Wecarefully studied the opinion heretofore rendered on Felhsry 7, 1938, by Jamee M..Wo~; then Assistant XttOrney General to Eon; -Si C. Coffec,;~and ~agrse'thireirlth. Other authorities than the ~oaae 'ot~Carrol1 T; ?iil?liqsi,%!Ob S.Ua 5C4, olted-by Hr. Neff, I whlaH ~6 think in line thsrewlth: If Ter. Jur. 609, Sea. 78; Robblns vs.. LQnestone County, 260 SW. 915, p. 919; Comnl3alonerP~ Court v. Burk, 262 S.Wi 94 '(CIT. App., writ rsZused);~Sandero Y. Looney, 225.S.W. 28O;~%illaso'vl Oomnle3lonera~Court of Madi- . son County, 281 S;Wi‘~.503 -(Qlv. App. reversed on other grounds),

From these iuthorities'we oolicltidr the oorreot statement of the law tb be that(constltut$oii~l l'udd~s meiy-not be tiansferred from one !'und to enother; may,not be diverted; and Commlsslonerel Courts have no power expend for one'purpose tax modey raised ostensibly ror In thls oonneotlon, w point out that the.oplnlon of July 8 1935, written by Aasls~tant Attorney General Vlotor'W. Bouliln tio~Hodorable 9. C. Ooffee, 8oema to overrule the opinion 0: former Assistant Attorney.Gensral Davis, dated 2daroh .lS; 1935.~ ,We ti@!ttlon thego opinions beeaueo'they are set out In--y&r brlejf and-]sbem to~hs?r been the+iiis.'ot Coml3a~oner3~'order9~al3a~~3~t~im~ In your btilef. Uopfes'of all three-op$nlons arb'a@pefitted~hetisto. We alti append a copy or an bpl~loh:~tten~b¶aro~ 17;~.1937, by Asalatant Attorney General Vlotor VI. Boqldlq;to,Bo~orable.S, C. ,S"ith,~ Countq Attorney, ‘.. '. Meridian, Texas. ..: ' ., '. I

Answering your f+rb& qudbtlon'%'%ve oire?ully,not ed the pmvlalona of Title 36, R.C.S;;,rslatlng to, tee County Treasurer. Artlole 1709 dire&s the Treasurer to 'pay~ani apply. 1 'lEOd8~3 "es requlred'by liri" but. further "in suoh m&nier aa %hs- L oommlssloners~ court of his county may rewire ard dlreetm, .'y;" 7, ; .,,. ..I ,~, .., ~;.

Artlole 1713 %a'# iollawet' .qae County~Trsasurer * shall not pay any money'6utor ~the county treehry emiept In pur- auanoe.or a aertlflcatd~~or warrant from 80s~ of~loer aathorized by law ta issue the sam(,; and if suoh treasurer shall have any doubt of the legality oriproprlety of'any order, deoree, oertl- _- . . . . a a,--*- _- ~~....~._

Hon. Thomas& Elanton, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Pnge 4 " ._' :. _

, 7 : I .. the same. but shall make report thereof to the aommlssloners~ Court for their cona,Ideratlon and direotlon." ._. - -:; ?J. JZT.5. _:. 'in

The County Treasurer la a oonstltutlonal officer, and the Legislature hae.+he $ouier to prescribe his dutlas. (Const. , Art. 16, Seo, ~444);.. G:e.i;tti Ro authority Ye *raaaUer of funds by. the'ttia+er'on-Me Wu:lMlinstl~n, but the statutes qbbove quQt@ ?a.pn,~~~cZ?a,~ff-~~diosts ~ri:d~ty.~~.tbb pmm$eea. !&are- ~~;:~~e'hol&tke~anMM& ~t%ens Xo%.'4'?8@ e:e bo. In thu'negatlve.

~estg~-~~;~:.~h~.~i:an~~rsa'thsm is.ao erlxlnal lle~ll$~ cni the pa& oi~eEthor~~t,the orilalrsmaattoned. No officer, any'more than a private Individual, may be punished for any aof or omIialon es a penal offense, unles? the aame Is ex- pressly defined ilnd %SieY#tuialt$ afflxed.by the wrlttmn law. 9ee P. C. (1925y~.Pxt. 3; Stota Ti -abury,

37 Tex, ,159. In the Xtngsbury case iihew'w6e .n~ ‘8tatutu making. tha:aat.of the County Court In unlawful19 appmrSng an .aaoouut apainstcths ooun%g a See‘34~Ter; 'Jur: '479. See also opintorbon rpotlon penal orrense. for rehearing in oase"ef..&op8r:v. State, 279 9. W. 449. The oorreat iGs& to:your questi& Ho. fl h& @en 'F&m a'~d~ti,~‘axealnation oi. your sntira.brlef,

mnoh conokn. however, snd the wo&!Uati fast situation of t&e-matter.Mfore us, ws,havs conoluded-ther+eheuld be no-olvl.LUabilitp of qny of tha offlaers mentioned by You.

iYe are of opinion the odunty jud@ amX.~ommlasIonera, In passing the orders mentioned a$ove, and set out fully In your Inquiry, were aotlng In a tldla$al.oapaoi%y oKu%‘lWUt In a quasi-judicial oapaolty. 3 i 80, the respootlvu member8 of the oourt ace not reaponslble for olvll bamap?ta. In thlw: oonnectlon, your attention Is called to the.oaae ot.Coma?@e.:Co~ty. v,.Burks, 166 3. ';:. 470 (CIv. App. writ r&fused). @ that ease tEfCoz- mlsaloners court sold oertaln aohool lti%&s*m

vest!ng the proceeds of tb? male In seau~ltles mxU&ed by the Constltutlon, from to tlme,dlverted portions thereof and appropriated the snme to the general purpoees of the oounty. The court, ln a well written opinion, held the .offloers acted In pood faith In a judlclal or quasi-judicial aapaolty, and were therefore not personally: liable. The oounty, aa such, was held ..-

._ :

Hon. Themes L. Blenton, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Page 6

:. '-:;

liable to the school fund and judgment entered accordingly.

Lee in addition to the Commahe County Case, eupra,- 22 R. C. I.

p. 478, Seo. 152; p. 484, Sec. 162; 46 C. J. 1042; 34 Tex. Jur.

p. 466, et seq.; Callaway V. Sheppard, 89 S. :7. (2) 417 (Clv.

APP. writ dismissed); MoDonald t. Farmer, 56 S. 'a. 555 (Clv.

App.); Creswell Ranoh & Cattle Co. v. Roberts County, 278 S. Y.

737 (~civ. f4pp. writ rerused).

Under authority of the oase of McDonald v. Famer, supra, we think your question is.apeolfioally answered as to the County Treasurer. The reoetit ease of Hoffman Y. Davis, 100 S. W. (2d) 94, (Corm. App.) f’ull~~disqmsei the rlehts and duties or oounty tresstiers and i8LrsspectfUlly refe,yred to therefor. '! .r-.. : . . -

w vlrtub oi'the-dutdbrltlee.oited, question'&. 7 should be answemed In the negative ae to all offiodrs there .- ' .jnqulred about.

As to your duty-in the premises, as refloated by your question-No. 8, we suggest;you pefer the matter to the County Treasurer with the advfoe.that ho formally request the Oomnissionersl Court to pass an order transferring the eqds in controversy to.the prop.er 8fnkln~~fundo. If tha‘Cina- missioners Court ehotild thsn refuse to do so, underthe BU- thoritp of Eoffimn v..Davls,:+~pka, there appears no doubt of.

the right and dutfof the treqsqr to bring en aotion. The Court In that. oaae did not 'tiadW,upon.the question .&f whether the County Attorney rould‘have ~~.aancU5rlng rlgh$:but the pro- visIona or ~rt.339, R. 0. s;.would sesai%ci bestow ib: 4 . . . -f ( , _._ s *. .~\. *._ YourB. ver$ truly :. ::

'. .o;.I%&is ..' Alsi*tant Bk':ET

XTTO.3NZY C3XXRAL OF TEXAS