AUSTIN 11. -
ffROvEFlSELLERS
-N
ATX-GRNEY GENERAL
Honorable Jesse James
State Treasurer
Austin, Texas
Dear Mr. James : Opinion No. O-7010
Re: Whether or not a warrant which
haa been pal4 by the State Treasurer,
but which was later charge4 back to
the bank, which ha4 presented It,
an4 received payment thereof because
of a lack of proper endorsement, msy
k3;a;t4when presented egain properly
If such re-presentation Is
beyond tie date allowe by statute
for presentation.
Your request for ari opinion upon the above subject
mstter Is 8s follows:
“Will you please give me your opinion as to
whether we would be barred from repaying a war-ant
under the following conditions :
“The warrant in question was date4 May 24,
1943, an4 haa been pal4 by this department. The
endorsement thereon Is now questioned. If we now
charge thie warrant back to the bar&k that prsaed-
e4 It to us, can we repay the warrant when It Is
agaIn presented, properly endorsed, even though
the date of the warrant would bar It from payment
If It he4 never before been presented?”
Article 4371 of the Revised Civil Statutes, Insofar
as applicable to your Inquiry, Is as follows:
“t l No money shall be pal4 out of the
*,
Treasury except on the warrant8 of the Comptroller,
an4 no warrant nhall be paid by the Treasurer un-
leus presented for payment within two years from
the close of the fLucal year In whIoh such warrant
was 188~04, but claims for the payment of such
warrants may be presented to the Legislature fop
appropriations to be made from which auah olaimU
may be made."
Honorable Jesse James, page 2
Now, the language, "and no warrant shall be pal4 by
the Treasurer unless presented for payment within two years“,
etc., means that such claim lrmstbe thus presented by the payee;
or some other person shown to be entitled to present and collect
such warrant as by endorsement by the payee, to the ena that
the Treasurer may lawfully pay the same.
While State warrants are not tegotleble Instruments,
nevertheless it has been held that the language, "presented for
payment" in connection with a State warrant, has the same mean-
ing as wien that language Is used in our Negotiable Instrument
JAW. (See Opinion No. 0-1362).
If not thus presented by one entitled to receive pay-
ment, and to one whose duty it is to make payment, there has
been no presentation, within the meaning of the statute.
If the'warrent In question was paid without a proper
endorsement, snowing the right to receive payment to be In the
person presenting the same, then it was wrongfully pai4, and If
you should now charge the warrant back to the bank that present-
ed It, the bank agreeing to the charge-back, the State will
still be legally liable for the item t,othe proper owner of the
warrant, but urder the statute above quoi.edyou will not be
authorized ic pay the same upon presenta%lon, ever.inough prop-
erly endorsed, For the reason tne period of ZZmitatioc For pre-
sentation of warrants has expired.
Tnls statute of limltatlor.,howeverl b&lng mereig a
statute, it would be In order for the LegIsla~%ureto authorize
the payment, and correspondingly your duty to make payment wlih-
In such time as thu.sauthorlz,edby the Leglslatxr,e.
Vary truly gax-9
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
By a/ OcIe Spear,
Ocle Speer
Aasis+.er.t
0s:NR:wc
APPROVED JAN 12, 1946
s/Carlos C. Ashley
FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Approved Opinion Committee By s/%iB Chairman
’ .