NE
ltbo The right or the Count;l
Judge to a oommlasloa on
lrtual olsh reorlpts of I
&uarUm when ha requlrd
u **p o rort* looountlmg
es lrk reooipts duriy
tro.(uaralaA8blp.
DOas aim
ZWomo ir m&e tQ your reornt rrque8t whloh
rbAaA iA pwt wa f*llbwat
*Tko @m8tlon h88 lrlsor wkothar or not
t&o county Ju@o 18 wtithd to $ or l$ oom-
A tly lotugl a88k rrorlpt8 0r the
c tkb S6llbwUtg raat sitmtloa:
*Cvb tbn
q oar8 lg q th euarilianwa s
lppbl0tbd wbr io 8ln0r Oh11fran by the
3
0ouAty cburt~0r myat. C@uJltp,Toxao, and
thb guardian 4uly qwririd at amil tlm
.aWillb4 L&o' lwutory a&d a,#pr8iromrat,
rklol~ma 8ppr**d atead& t$mb. :Sinro
that tlm ao'uurul geohmtly2 ar any-
thing whatooivbr waa'~4om in 8816 guardlaa-
8kl)'kiatlltko guardira on Pooubrr 0, 1946,
rim l briei report 8Wuli1~ thot~ klr ward8
hd abw roe&h& tkolr rifoMtf, fikatko had
lolioeril a21 pro lrtlr8 to tkrm to whloh
tnw wore WtlJ to UC ruaakd to sala
riw report a rrlrare rrhm uid w&r (Lull
lokwml*d*rd bf thei ia wkioi~they too 8t8to
tkat thy &vb rwbbd tP*Lr ,Wjority *ad
&av* m&a 5 sr)loh oattlanbnt witk their
oafa gtrrwa, arl 8p0bfr20aip release
hia horr all furthor ll*billty bp vlrtuo
ti Wu 4*r4$ana&lpe I8 thl8 ihal report
bt t&o &a,' lu ~~thiu rhataorvor 18 sham
a* to wh$ ?a a rot& oar& reorip%8 oi suoh
Han, J. P. Hart, Page 2 (V-786)
guardian were during such guardianship,
I am herewith enclosing a copy of such
final report of said guardian, to which
was attaohed the release of the former
wards 0 The Court acted on this final re-
port and release of the wards thereto at-
tached, and closed the guardianship, and
fully discharged the guardian, All Court
costs incident to this closing of the guard-
ianship have been paid by the guardian with
the exception that the question has arisen
as to whether or not the County Judge fs
entitled to 1 of 1% of the actual cash re-
ceipts of such guardian during such guard-
ianship D Even though such final report of
the guardian does not show it, the guard-
ian actually did have some cash receipts
during said’ guardianship,”
The pertinent portion of Article ~3926, V, C.
S “, is as follows:
“The county judge shall also reaeive
the following fees:,
“1. A commission of one-half of one
per oent upon the actual cash receipts of
each executor, administrator ore guardian,
upon the approval of the exhibits and the
final settlement’of the account of such
executbr, administrator or guardian, but
no more than one such aommission shall be
charged on any amount received by any such
executor, administrator or guardian,”
The case of Grice L Cooley, 179 S, W, 1098,
1s authority for the proposition that the word “ex-
hibit” as used in the above article includes annual
accounts. It is also stated in the above cited case
that:
“0 0 0 By article 4186, R. S. 1911,
guardians’ are required to present an annual
account under oath showing, among other
things s ga aomplets aoeount 0r receipt8
and disbursements since the last annual
aooount 0 s Upon presentation of suoh annu-
al account, it is by subsequent provisions
or the statutes made the duty of the then
Hon. J. P. Hart, Page 3 (V-786)
presiding county judge to conduct a hear-
ing thereon, and, if he is autiafied that
the account ie correct, it is his duty to
approv s oame. Waving made it the duty of
the county judge to approve such accounts,
and having allowed a ree or one-half or 1
par oent upon the ‘actual cash receipts’
shown thereby, it surely follows, it seems
to us, that the oommissions are payable
upon such approval, for the reason that
they were aloarly intended for the benerlt
OS the offleer perfoning the duty, e D O n
In h. 0, Opinion Wo, 2692, dated May 19, 1927,
the $UOOtiOB was asked:
” where a Guardian oclleate money
rrom 162 io Deaember 31, 1926, during the
Ex-County Judge’s administration, and makes
no report to the County Judge until the pre-
sent County Judge took office, January 1,
1927, which one or the two judges is en-
titled to the one-half of one per cent?
“Is the former Judge who looked after
all the approval of orders cohvering deal8
during the collection or i8 the Judge in
office who has approved the exhibit8 en-
titled to the one-half of one per cent,
Ho report was made during 1924, 1925,
1926 as required by law, and none made
until the present County Judge took office
and required ft.”
It wao held that the County Judge who required
the annual asoounto to be filed end then approved them
was entitled to the fee. In this opinion it la further
stated that:
vWe are aon8blous that the effect or
thi8 holding is’ to deprive the %x-County
Judge of compensation for a certain amount
of labor perfonasd by him, but wo are less
troubled by this when we take into oonslder-
atlon the faot that had ho enforced the
provirlon8 of Chapter 9, Title 69 of the
Bevisod Civil Statutes, he would have re-
oeived this compensation. We realize also
Eon. J. P. Harf , Page 4 (V-786)
that the erreat ,of this holding 1s to grant
to the present County Judge oompensatlon
for a certain amount of l.abor which he did
not perform, but we ar8 less concerned with
this because’ it appears that the present
offlola did oompel the guardian to oomply
with Chapter 9 aforesaid, and file the re-
ports thereby required.”
There we8 no annual account riled as required
by law nor were any’ caeh ‘reiieipts shown in the final
acoount. Zn view of the forego1 it la our opinion
that the County Judge 18 not enti Y led to the one-halr
of. one per oent doiumi88~lon under Article 3926.
,Where no annual dcaount’wa8 filed, and no
aash reoelpt8 were ehown in the Sinai settlement of a
guerdlenahip, the County Judge 18 not entitled to the
one-half or one per oent commlesion under Article 3926,
v. c. 5.; Grlae v, Cooley,,l79 9. W. 1098; A. G. Opln-
ion Wo. 2692.
Youra very truly,
ATTOBWR GENBRALGF TEXAS
ADOiOtant
APPROVED
BA:mw