OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
ponoraljle hrtelle YoDonald
DiStriOt AttOrlBq
70th Judicial DistrlOf
liig Spring, Texa8
Dear kr. AloDonald:
te the offioe
, and related
oreuiber 18, 1943,
the first SOU
8, 1941, with
Deputy County
.tiBe the or-
e uriter loter-
a as*holdlng that the
-- that ir, the office
0 and Count'y Clerk or
are inotmpatible,
don8 0S Article 16, 8eo-
State Constitution,
ibits generally the holding ot
tro office8 of emolument by the same per-
Bon.
*In lieu OS such opinion, and Op the
hereinafter etated caots, me desire an
op*n.ion~upoa the follorini questions, a8-
suming the Sollouiug state of' faots to
‘exiett .'
.1
:, 515
lloucr5ble MArtelle LoDonald - page 2
lT h r t
la rarloun count165 in W65t
zaxaa, 8ituated in the 70th Judicial Dl8-
&riot, there$rs 8ereral CmW;I Clerk8 5d/
- or Deputy County Clerke who ~uclifled for
their oiiioer on Jaauary 1, ‘1043, and
thereafter, mid during the month OS June,
1~43, qualified thearselrem as, IlOtrrler Pub-
l&o by taking oath an3 making the hquired
boado.
lDmler the prml8ions of Article ie,
section 40, and the deoiaions olteU thee-
under, ii i5 tbe writer@5 opinion that the
court5 of this state brrve hold, that where
two cStices are lnooxapatible, ad a person
rttapts to qu5Ufy for two 5uch of~loe5,
the rlrst office i8 t5oated by the qu5ll?i-
05tion for tha 5eooti offioe, more 5peolfical-
11 8ince the COuntif Clarke in queetion quali-
ried am 8uoh on J5uuary 1, 1943, and there-
after In.June, 1943, attempted to or did
qualifT 55 YOfarie8 Publio, thor vacated
.the ofltioe OS County Olork.'
Zau then pose six qucrtiona Sor ou,r detemina-
t&m, the Siret CC rhioh t5 a5 follmrr
.(a) Doe8 t&a qual9fioat~on as Notuy
Public in June, 1948, 5ubrQqueat to the
~llfloation a8 County Clerk la Jenuwyi
1013, tamate the cffloe ef County Clerk?5
Beotion 40 Of Artidle 16 o? our"St5tt Constitu-
@on provides in part rs'tollar5:
.mRo person shall hold or exeroimo,’ at
the 55515 the, more than one clvll offloe
ot euoluaeut, exoepf that of Surtioe ci the
Peaoe, County Comrd55ioner, %otav Publio
and Po5tparter. * 5 55
J3cweror, it 18 ooutrary to the policy at the law
that fhe- came iodlriduol 8hould undertake to perform incon-
.rlst.ei&and incompatible dutien. (Phpharim ours) -
!, 516
..
yc5crab18 &al%8110 YoDonald - pye 3
5It in a well-nettled rule of tbs oom-
man 188that ha who, rhilo oooupyl.ng one
offlice, lcoeptm another inoompatible with
the flrrt, ipso faoto abmolately vaoater
the Ormt offloe and him title 15 thereby
termiitrPtodwithout any other letor pro-
omcding . *bat the ~5oond office in inter-
ior to the Stint does not affect the rule.
l + l.
'Put an exoeption in made to the goner-
al rule in those oases in 5bich the cffioer
oannot raaate the ofTio5 by him cm act, up-
on the priaoiple that he'5111 not be peWt-
tad to do indlrcotly rhat h5 could not 60
bireotly.. - Meohbm, Pub110 Oilices and Oi-
Sioer5 ( 1 89 l
0a)420-421.
In the came cl State T. DeGremm, 63 Tar. 3~987
.(fi20), tt maa held that one oould not legally hbld the
offloe oibayor oi the City * AUmti~, Texan, while con-
timing to be 5n crlfioer in the Army of the United states,
wen though on the retired l&at. Be 585 maoh an 5my of-
fioer at the the he man eleoted anti attempted to quality
for the osrioe of mayor. Ue 6reu a salary 88 8 retired
osrioer, lwi not resigned, and oould not rcmlgn without
the,coruent ot mupbrior5. ~l?mrefore, hIa 5ttempteU quali-
ci45tUa'fcr the office of Uyor did act relinquish the
arat iutioe. ft warn the leaond oftice th8t itiled.
The oonstltutional priiwlmion 5beve quoted pro- ..-,
blbitm the holding of two oivfl oii%oer oi.gmolument.
‘But mbers the fro cffioem 5r5 inoompafible in a 005mm-
la5 meMe it 15 net neeemmu-y to rely on the ocnmtitu-
Cional provision, and it prke8 ud diiYerewe th5t one or
thm reeeimkm no oompenmatioa, am the oonmon-15~ probibi-
tion ie~a aiamt holdin froinocawatible otfioea &public
&u&3---+ T 05155vs. A ernathy Cc. Line Indwl. Diet.,
220 iI* Il. 162 (Tex. CCm. App. 1927). A5 to That oonsfi-
tUte8 incompatible oiiioem in a oommom l&r sense, mea
liechem, mblio ofri005 5nd.offioor5 (~220) II 122.5 (~150
see TeMs Law JteriW, Vol. 12, pp+ 287-0~ 24 Tax. Jur. p.
9198 2 17).
In the 8ame of Pruitt et al t. elen Rose xnd.
Bohicl Dlot. Xc. 1, 24 2. Y. (2) $004, (Cole. oi App., but
,&able kartelle &oDonald - page 4
Joptea by-the suprsrpo Court) the follc5ing 15 quote& from
,, TCX. Jur. 384, par. 19, mhlch munmarires the 'rule;
gAiating eleoted to looept arml quillfy for
the 55cotxl Offioe, ipso foot0 an3 am a Batter
of 155, he r5oatec the Sirat aitioe. Thin in
true 5here both ofii0e5 are p15045 of emolu-
Beat, rcgardle88 Or vhether they are inOc8?pat-
ible, and if they are incompatible there in a
vacation of the-first oiiice regwdlesrn ot
5hether both are oZflce5 of emolument within
the ueaning of the Constitution. In ouoh oir-
eum5tanoem the ooastitutional prmidon that
511 officers shall continue to perform the du-
ties oi their cSlioe5 until a 5u00e55cr has
been qualified does not apply.5
Lt in also a sound p&noiple of 185, baaed on
public' policy, that 8n qifioer in prohibited from acting
in him oit%ial oapaoity am to matters in rhiah he h55 a
dj,reot axi oertaln intorent , 34 Tcx. Jur. 449, par. 72.
xn much-oases (with rare esoeptloam bared on necessity)
the entire prooeedlnge arm void inmoSar am him aotm are
ooac5rad. Bee Fry v. State, a6 Crio. aep. 73, 212 2. w.
gm,r-whioh holds void the lotm of a Co5md55.loner5' Ccurt
l1lo~ing a fraudulent claim of one of its 5wberm.
By Artiole 8949,V. A. 0. S., a 5 l~~adcd., it in
Yde the duty or the County Clark to approve 8118 file the
boul or eaoh Jlotary PubUo who qualifi4m am muoh in him
5ouaty. 88&d Artiole, in part, prmid48 that 'any person
appoint&a Uotary Publio, before chtering upon him offi-
ala1 duties, shall 8%eOUt4 a bond in the 5~51 of One Thc~15-
8nLDollarm with two or more solvent 8uretle8, or one sol-
vent surety oompany authorUed to do bu5ine55 in thin
fitate, Pm surety, such bond to be approved by the County
cl+ or bin tounty. 5 * 5. &id boxl shall be deposited
in the oifioe of the County Clerk and shall not be void on
the first rqocrery, and may be sued on in the name ef the
party injured from time to time until the she18 uncunt
tbreef ham been reoorercd. Any muoh p4roon shall be deem-
ed to be qualified (am a Notary) rhea he ham taken the cf-
ti.oial oath of orfloe., Surnimh~d'the bond and paid the fee5
hersin provided for.5
I.
‘,
‘_T
518
;,.nonyoble biytalle L6Douald - page 6
..
;.
_ in riew of the requirements of satd Article
6949, It is our opinion t&t one uho haa~qualified as
Coaty Clerk camot ,qualiir am a Yoty Public am, long
l. he holds the Somer oiSice. lit cannot ipprore his
osa boui as a Jiotq Public an7 more than ty ooulp ap-
pro*0 his bond (LB COUDtr Clerk. Y&s interest in 8~0h
‘ -tter la too dlreat and ael%ain an to a4w.t or any
doubt- &y attempt en hlr part to approve hi8 om
boud as a Notary Publia would be abaolotal~~vold ab
idtio and of no legal effeot ~hatmer.
Then, too, oin~e a Uotam@r bond, when ap-
~owd, muat be depoaitt&ln the office of the County
.Clak Sor safe kesplng,~ln order that rame mlght.bc
a@ on fn the MIUC of,the la#ared party from tdme to
t-e, should oeeasi6n arise, the County Clerk*r.intcr-
est in this oonneatioo lm'too direct and cortrin to
ptWE&t him t0 hTe the @me Bnd ClABtOd~ Of a bond OXe-
outed br.hia as a Hetar~ Publio.
(A GOWIty Clark*8 bond, aft&r being recorded
in his office, eat then'be deposited in the atfloe of
the Clerk or the Distr'iat Cowt. Article 1937; 1. 8.)
therefore obriou8
ft is that, beo~1813 0-t 8
d& me+ a nd o sr ta hintUWrt, l County Clerk cannot ap-
art
pr0~0 bin om bed a~ a ROt+v ,Publie or hare the cum-
*.z Oraao2eo
I? he attezpta to do so, swh acts
. iie.doer not thereby relinqulab the oSfiee of
County Clerk. Xt ia the Oifl~e of Xotary .mblie that
rails.
#or the reaaom ateted,'yfmr Carat quest-ion
18 uwkred in the negatiree This obviates tbs neoea-
ritT of paadng upcn the other queatloaa submittad,
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion