Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon. I. Predeckl Opinion No. V-733 County Auditor Galveston County Re: The disposition to be Galveston, Texas made of the fees of R c0nstabl.efor serving the first notice In eviction ectlons. Dear Sir: Reference 1s made to your recent request which reads, In part, as follows: "As you know, all County Officials must file their Annual Reports as required In Artl- cle 3897, R.C.S., as amended. "Mr. Henry Felgle, Constable, Prec. #l, Galveston County, has executed his report. He did not account for fees that are paid, but to the best of my knowledge, are not stipulated in the Statutes, for serving the first notice in evictions. . . "Mr. Felgle takes the position that he does not have to account for the fees that he receives for the notices served referred to." We assume that-,theConstable gave the notice under Article 3973 and Section 1 of Art. 3975, V. C. S., which provide as follows: "If any person (1) shall make an entry Into any lands, tenements or other real pro- perty, exce t in cases where entry is given by law, or 72) shall make any such entry by force or (3) shall wllfully and without force hold over any lands, tenements or other real property after the termination of the time for which such lands, tenements or other real property were let to him, or to the person under whom he claims, after demand made in 162 Hon. I. Predecki, page 2 (v-733) writing for the oossesslon thereof by the person or Dersons entitled to such oosses- f&on, such person shall be adjudged guilty of forcible entry and detalner, or of for- cible detainer, as the case may be. Any justice of the peace of the precinct where the property Is situated shall have juris- ;i;,":o+of any case arising under this . (Emphasis added) Art. 3975. "A person shal.1be adjudged guilty of forcible detalner also In the following cases: "1. Where a tenant at will or by suf- ferance refuses, after demand made In wrlt- lng as aforesaid, to glve possession to the landlzrd after the termination of his will. . . ., In passing upon a similar question In the case of Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.w.(2d) 559, the Supreme Court stated: "The Clerks of the Courts of Civil Ap- peals are not entitled to receive extra com- pensation for services performed within the scope of their official duties prescribed by law. The general principle prohibiting pub- lic officials from charging fees for the per- formance of their official duties does not prohlblt them from charging for their ser- vices for acts that they @e under no obllga- tlon, under the law, to perform . . . "There being no statutory duty requlr- lng petitioners to furnish uncertified, un- official.copies of opinions of the Courts of Civil Appeals, no statute fixing any fee for such services, and no valid statute requlr- ing that money received therefor be deposlt- ed In the State Treasury, there 1s no debt owing by petitioners to the State. Since petitioners are not required to account to the State Treasurer, under the existing statutes, for such,receipts, they cannot be required to execute an affidavit that such Hon. I..Predeckl, page 3 (V-733) funds have been deposited in the State Trea- sury as a condition for $he delivery of their monthly salary warrants. It will be noted that the aa'ovestatutory pro- visions do not make It an official function of the Con- stable to serve the notice required by Art. 3973, V. C. S nor are we able to find any such statlifte.As stated ln'the case of Moore v. Sheppard, supra, the general principle prohlbfting public officials from charging fees for the performance of their official duties, does not prohibit them from charging for their services for acts that ttey are under no obligation, under the law, to perform. Therefore, in the absence of statutory pro- hibition, the Constable of your county may retain the money which he may receive for serving written notice in eviction cases, since there is no authority to the ef- fect that such money is a fee of office for which he iS accountable. SUMMARY A Constable who receives money for serving written ,notice in evic,tioncases is not required to nrrnnnt for same. Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.w.(2d) 559. Yours very truly, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS BA:bh:mw By/4&cc~./*-~ J Bruce Allen Assistant APPROVED: ASSISTANT ORNEYGWWAL