Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN HonorableYalker Carrron Cogaty Attorney IiudepethCounty Warra Bluma. +exa* Dear Sir: y under iaote Into tho offioa ln 0 hia office fmm tb very little fee6 edng in, r having eolleotea all ooaeirr- raaete before ho went QUO,or salonerrv Courtb, in tier of tie88 e8lreo to allow tho slurliT a 8alarf for ,ex-offioio mr110~8, an4 ha6 reque8ted me to ob- tain 'anopinion rrom four office a8 to the 18gallty. The feea and ~X~WMI feea ~1 tbie of'fioebars far IB~WIX~ year8 reaohd the mxlmue au0-a ondex hrtmaa ~8635*ad swi, ana ei0e88 r8s8 hare t34308 returned to the county, ot the ecd OS the yeer. * * ** You further atate that by the end ot the yea the amount of raeo oclleetedby the office ~111 probablf sroeed tha mxinum but not untll arts Ootober, and that ior the rlrat ati months they hasteamuntx? to lees tbran0~00.00. The Qaaraiaalon- era' Court wm.aBIlikr to allow oompem3.&loaSor ax-4ffieio aerv- ioas not to 6xaeed $1,000. Under the above etatsb raat8, you r*qu%LitOW opti- ion aa to whether the CoPmissionera'Court may legelly allew the payment 0r oompeneationr0r sx-ofsio~o a6nlaea to the oi- rieu in thin tnatanoe. ArtioLe SBS3, Vernoa*a Annotated Cir%l Statutea, pr5v1ars aa iollew*r ‘“ifhe ConnrLaaiomra~Court ia hereby iIebmre4 rrolp allowl* iwmpensatlonfor epofifolo aenl~~a se agusty offieirla when the wwf+nafitio~-a er**aa tees which thry sra ailme k, xatah ~a#ioUn&eh tha asdmum prottad r0r in thi8 ehaptes. In maea where the c+Mqenaatlonaad exeeea feea *B&ah tba officer8 are all0wOd to xetab ohall not paoh, the mmlmwa pmvtdea ror in this ohapta, tBr Qcmula- aionera* aotm asall allow bcnapenaatiaa fop 4sx-offtoi6 lsmLw8 when, in their JutQsoitt,~ auoh aoxpoaaetfon i8 n8868itaxy,proriaad,auoa 00qnmetIan to* ox offlsln senlaoa all&w4 ah&l& net inWeaae the Ooa- pcmaation or the official bomk4 aha mum of ew- psnaation and oxoeoa feea allowed to~be rehalacidby him antler this chapter, Pmvlded, hWeV&, ,thr 6X offiale herein authoris ahall ?m allare only after ln qpptmtunlty rcw P pub110 heuarfngeMI sllrjr upen the 8fUxmatite wite of at hart threm aedera Of th0 aesnala~i~owra' oourt.* %%e pmhlbitiim a @ a in8t lllewfag aerp*nBclfl,oa fOP en-offtol~ rmiae8 to county offi6tpl* soatafned in the &we ltatnte boaoma iffedtivcr only ~%hoa thr eempeaeefionen4 eI- aeaa feea whloh they axe allowed tar .retalnabd.~ Mach t&e rParimU &WOridedfef in thia ohrsptaT.* In ems11 oomfle8, where the offioera are oompea- rated en a fee boalo, rash a8 your8, a oouatp offlaer oanmot buteW* Uaoil near the olow 0r the ri8cal year whether hi* fee8 of offioe will be auffloient,after all lawful 8xp8mm8 have beon deducted, to mke the maximum salary allowed tc~be retained by him. tlowarer, the offfoer, for lnatenoe the sherirr, has been ronderlng to the county lx-ofiloi~ servloes trolp t&, wry beginnlns of the year, therefore, it i8 the aomoa and lawful praatloe r0r oonrPf8alooera* owarts, upon applioatloa of oountl offloerr, to fir thrlr reapsotlre ex-offloio eaapon- 8atlon in ;Iamary for the entire current year. But where this Proaedum 18 riotfollowed or rhea a0 8uoh oompeaaationhaa at euoh a tti been fixed for a&~ officer, or haa be- i&x@ xor 80~~ offleaa bat not Sor all, it 1s legal far the awwaiaaio~ra~ OOUlTt at a later tlati to fti such otxapeu~tf~, u Q& thefr Witmont such ooazxmmtlaa is neoesaary, rar theeoflioera wha hew not ?wm theretcmre allowed aaoh oompenemtion. Opinion Ao. 84M9, a oopy oi whiah la hemlth e.noloaeU. It appaara ~fror J~UF letter that no order has here- tofore been mad@by the ~daalo~ero* aeart of four uouatt with nf brenoe to ex-offiolo eoagenaatlon ‘to tba ohexit? for the aurrent year, therafore that orrlasr htaa not been paid any auah ottqpenaatloa for aa part of the ourrent T-P. Vnodrrthe?* faota, JOP are adtlaed .t L t the aazmdaalon*ra* court, upon a plloation by the sheriff, aad upen 00 lianae with Art1ola &es. nay enter an owlor gmnting th4 um~ Y w thin the rtatatory llait tl%otl by Art. %%. You are'rarther alvise that, un4lerfbhoSoalia Hated. in the lostant oaee, the eOm8lS8lOner8' 0 Ita~arderretroaatlveto SanUary 1, 194S. lQ6 %x88 564, 16T 8. 1. 810, ,/ OT aa order allowin oompcuu4tlonfor thb resrrfaiW part of this year. If tke&er la ma&8 retroaotireto ~afM&aF~ 1, tb ~hr~ff fraythan bo issued a warrant rer tha month8 that hwe elapsed since that bat*. Honever., ii tha ordor is pros- peatite and oaly ror the rmaiaber 02 the Yea*, tb roarinrrrp b 8p a id th eeheriff oannot lx o a ed fo r a w o ne (1 008, beaaaSe &tiale MS54 @pr@fiieaq m- ia the MXISUVA amount that may be d&Owed a ohfliff p* *mw *a eompnaatloa for ex-erilols aenloea- ft fellow* that wh*re lao& ~rpeaaatloa 18 allow& for al tW@ l*a# tw QM pm the fuu aompenaatlon for one mar MY @nlY b0 proporti0n8.u~auowd. In view of the facto in the inattintease, me i,n&dvanoe ex-offi~locoqensation to g akeriff wiw a~u%vBepanrntly ~aba the nerximm corngenaatlon allowed by law to be retained by him for that yesrr,aralualv~al the ex-oriloio eompenaation paid hkP bl the county, that if bso&ar hia duty to return the amount of ex-oitiaio oompenaationao reoeived to tha ownty, and, upon hia teilure to do ao. the oounty bad a oauaa of aotlon agr.inst h&an&ah$a bondamen-forMS an&u& ao unlorwfully ratal&. 8rrant Co nty. et al. v. tbllia. et al.76 8. W. (84) 198,‘amor dia~aaed. ihi8re enaloslng 8 oopy of our Opinion Bo. O-4500, \ which wa d2sousaed (Ialsll8r qaeatlon and reaobed the aame ~~~lualanexpraeaad in thla opinion. Your0 very traly, E. R. 3imwna Asalatant