THE NEY GENERAL
TEXAS
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
September 13, 1949
Hon. C. H. Cavnesa Opinion No-V-901
State Auditor
Austin, Texas Re: The duty of the Commls-
sioner of the General
Land Office to collect
accounts due that office
Dear Sir:
Your requeet for an opinion reads as follows:
"In connectionwith our current audit
of the account8 of the Qeneral Land Office
we respectfullyrequest that you refer to
Attorney General's Opinion No, O-5332 (dated
July 22nd, 1943) and advise us which Depart-
ment or Offlbtal of,the State has the duty
of taking action to recover to the State the
remaining uncollectedaccounts due the Qen-
era1 Land Office - accounts such aa are
described In that opinion,
"Followingthe ruling of the above opfn-
ion the Land Office ceased extending credit
to all customers and required funds to be on
deposit In the General Land Office or the
State Treasury before services were rendered,
etc. At that time there were uncollected
accounts dub the Land Office as follows:
"J. Ii,Walker
Willfam Ii.McDonald
Bascom Glles
Total
"Beglnnlng~.atthat time collectionswere
made on these accounts to the point where the
entire amounts shown due by J. H. Walker and
Bascom Glles have been satisfactorilyaccount-
ed for, and a total of $69.25 was collected
on the William H, McDonald accounts, This
.-
- 1
.-~ . _
Hon. C, H, Cavness - Page 2 (V-901)
leaves a total balance due of $1,551.65
on said McDonald accotznts. It ueems to
us steps should be taken to collect this
balance but of course it is out of our
province, and your advice in the matter
will be greatly apprecfated,"
We have discussed this letter with Rr, Grady
Starnes of your Department,and, a8 we understandhim,
you are not inquiring as to whfch department 01"offf-
clal has the duty of inftiatlnglegal actfon to collect
the amounts due the State, but your questions are as
follows~
1. Is it the duty of the Commfssionerof the
General Land Office to make a written demand against the
debtor for payment of delinquent sums due the State of
Texas under Art, 3918, V,C.S.?
2. If the above question Is answered fn the
negative, then which head of department or State Offf-
cial has the duty of making demand?
We answer your first question fn the afffrm-
ativeand hold that the Commissioner of the General Land
Office has the duty of making demand for the payment of
delfnquent accounts incurred under Art, 3918, V.C,S,
Generally. the Caamnfssfonhas onlr those oowers.
duties, and respon~~bflftiesconferred
State v, Post, 169 S.W. 401 (Tex, Cfv,
other grounds, 106 Tex.500, 171
statute, given custody,and-controlof all accounts in the
General Land Office (AI%. 5262,v.c,s,)and the general con-
trol of the Land Office (Art. 5251, V.C,S.). He also has
such implfed powers as ape necessary to the fulfillment
of his express 46 C.J,1032, Officers,Sec.287;
34 Tex. Jur. 44$~%cers, Sec. 68.
We believe the makfng of a demand for payment
of sums due the Land Office rests upon the Colnfssfoner
by virtue of the above cited authority.
In Attorney General$s Opinion V-791, dated
March 24, 1949, It was held as follows:
.c
Hon. C. H. Cavness - Page 3 (V-9011,
“It la the dwty of Land Commissioner
to asoertaln when Interest Is due on delln-
quent bonus, rentals and royalty and to
make demand therefore” (Emphaslls-)
Attorney Qeneralts Opinion O-5332, date& July 22,
1943, holds that the Commiaslonerla without authority
to extend credit In respect to fees required layArt,3918,
v,c.s. The opinion also says:
“In your letter you Inquire upon wbem
rests the reaponulbllltyto collect accounts
for ,theservices of ~,the
CommissionerIn tiling
documents and for certified copies, etc. under
said Article 3918, Revised Civil Statutes.
Since there la no authority on the part of
the official to create such accounts, there
Is no statutory provision with respect to the
collectionthereof. The official bond of the
official protects the rights of the State to
receive the fees provided for In said Artl-
cle 3918,”
We Interpret%he above quoted paragraph to hold that
the Land CommlsaionerIs without statutory authority to
Initiate legal action for collection;and It does not,
therefore, conflict with our holding In the present opinion,
The duty of making demand rests upon the present Cou-
missioner for Indebtednesscreated during the term of a
predecessor. 46 C.J, 1035, Offfaers, Sec. 301 says:
“As a general rule, dutlas lmposed~by law
on public officers are functions and a$trlbutes
of the office; and they remain, although the in-
cumbent dies or Is changed, and are to be per-
formed by the Incumbent,although they MJ:
have been left undone by the predecesror,
See also 34 Tex, Jur. 449, Public Officers,SeC.~.
Since the first question Is answered~~inthe afflrm-
atlve, it will not be necessary to answer the second quel-
tlon,
Hon. C. P. Cavnea8 - Page 4 (V-901),
SUEMARY
The-Commlsalonsrof the General
Land OffIce has the duty of makIng a
demand against debtors for delfn uent
accounts incurred under Art, 3918',V.C.S.
YourB VepJrfruly
ATTORNEYGERRRALOF TEXAS
,JW:bt
APPROVED