OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
GRETA,.
ATTORH=I
Honorable Lon Alsup
Executive Secretary-Director
State Commission for the Blind
Austin, Texas
"ear !Ar.Alsupr Opinion Boa O-7181
A
Re: Is Federal Gover&en~ required
Your letter states
Comptroller issued a State
payable to the United
Farm Security
lost, and had
not do so unl~e
Vernon's Annotated Cltll
/ +&ask ~'$0 a,@se
' If any branch of the Federal
r&qulre&&Wmake
"' bond when a warrant'hae been
epahtment of the Federal Government by the State
r;
Com&,rolJer otjPublic Accounts, and such warrant has been
lost.?
_ ' \,,l/' /
1. Ar,tl&le 4365, Revised Statutes, above referred to,
~rovide~~~~eclflcally for the Issuance of a duplicate war-
rant when the original has been lost 'but no such duplicate
warrant or other evidence of lndehtedness &al] issue until
the applicant has filed with the Comptroller his affidavit,
statlne that he Is the true owner of such instrument, and
that tke same is in fact lout or destroyed, and shall also
file with the Comotroller his bond In double the amount Of
the claim, with two or more pood and sufficient sureties,
payab!e to the Governor to be apnroYed by the Comptroller.'
- ,
812
Honorable ton AI sup - page 2
In OUF O?lnlon X0. c)-23O%,R copy of'Which YOU have,
this Pepartment held that before the Pallas Independent School
District could. obtain a duplicate Warrant, It, as a yoljtlcal
subdivision of the State’, was required to execute the hond be-
fore obtaininn a duplicate warrant. In said Opinion we held
that there were no exceptions oontalned In said statute, and
t?at ft therefore applied, and would apply, to each and all
of the State Governmental agencies.
In the case of United States Y. Branson, 147 8. 1.
(2) 286, (error ref.) the United States had filed suit to re-
oover a monied judgment apalnst the Banking Comlssloner.
The trial court held aralnst the United States, and it appeal-
ed. The court had for review the question of the necessity
for the United States t.o execute an appeal bond under Article
2263 of the Revised Civil Statutes. In holding that it was
necessary, the court stated;
‘Art. 22!53. Rev. WY. Stat.‘,1925, provldes that
‘An appeal may 0 * * be taken * * * by the appellant
giving notice of anpeal * * l by his fillne with the
clerk an apueal bond wh~ere a bond Is required by law.
if**‘. Artlole 22615 yesorlhes the form and suffiolen-
cy of t.he bond. The Legislature has seen fit to ex-
emnt certain persons and entitles from the requlre-
ment of.fllin~ an appeal bond * * * but no Texas
statute, either expressly or by Implication, exempts
the United States from giving the bona required by
Article 2253. Xelther Is it exempted by any Act of
Congr’eee~’
Since our courts have speclficallf held that the
United States Government, In order to perfect an appeal to
our State court,s,mst give an appeal bond, they rould un-
questionably hold that before the Lbited State’s Government,
or any of Its ageno’les, cou!d obtain a duplicate warrant from
the Comptroller, under Article 438.1) of the Revised St.atutes,
It would be necessary for It to execute the bona required
therein.
In reply to your question, therefore, we state t.hat
the Comptroller is correct in his refusa.1 to Issue a dup’llcate
warra.nt until and/or unless the bond required by said statute
I s executed.
Very truly pours
COYMn-rLE
GWB-XR