Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Hon. C. J. Wilde County Auditor .iWeoesCounty corpus Chrlstl, Texas Dear Sir: . . 99’7 "~.%dditioraal work nrsdenecessary ?q~ ohanges and alterationsof plans or for other ressoAs, for whbh no prfoes ara provldsd lnthe cmntreat, shall bade- ftmd as 9%tr8Workwanb shallbepar- fonntsdby the aoatraotorin aooordame with them spaoifloutionaandas diw9atM; provLded,however,thatbeforaaagextm worki begtma ysq?plewmftalAgresmeat~ shallbe exmJuted,aJ?awr~ttanardezl.Is- awd~thQR+nemtodo.thew~kaae "Paroe Aaa.onAt.tiaaia,88,, harelnrlfterpro- Yiderd.* I . . 998 999 Eon. 2. J. Ml&, Page 4 Reffmmoe to t&6 mggrmer~s e6t3.i+q6,,enolosed by Of swh Y. In the a*ae of mm6$ii 'vs. xmx; et al, 234 9. lf,~.l3lt?q &n&rl'had~uinler &qm on e,suit ,toasnoe~ a u&&6& Islada; *~,'aoauety @iWit6lW Of'LimestOAt!Count;y 6e of aso~.af a w&8 In 64x0066of $2,000.00 smttaa saitlpurohase priae and oontr6ot to ifiVe bids, @M WAtOAtiOA bt'w. lW@ that UAdttZArt;iOlW and 2268b, vaptcrh ceartalnp&aatbally the"66stezwqubemnts ab are Am8 aoAt6inedFrrswtioxi2 at ATEi 236&a, 6bov6 sat out, 66&3 CO&l'6ot,W66 void. l!hare J#S~ 8160 ti.olV6d ia 66l.dCOntreCt asrpart~pagpreAt;ofacr~dd~hasaprloe the ssile~ mad Cauntg cc6mtls~i~r t3fo8rtatamule6 andotherprw3rty berangingto ~stoti'Cour&y et e price iriexcess of $2,002).00.IA peEem upon safd contention, the Court held aa Pollw~: . . Hon. C. J. Wilde, Page 5 "That the provisions of artiole 226th above -quotedwere not xwimplied~tith by the oommlssioners@ oourt;~~of:~~est~.bounty In the transaotlon~ oora- ptairx&of bg,the &ppellant Ls u@lsputed: Heith& ;..thepup&aae? oi:' the :~&S&&y nor''thesale up QX+~' .~ ohange.~*fi~a&m j~.',w@on; && ,&&mess -ws su&itL :ted ~to'oomp&itlve~.bid6; ancVno'~notlce$hat swh'a pumhase sudidale:w ~333cohange was contemplated,or would.be made by thenoonnnissioners* oourt, was given in a ni3wspaper?oz~by~ps6ttng not;ioiwat thi3oourt+ : I h-e :~de@,..!lW oeitk6at ant&f& &nto ~yolved the -:expemi$turem pa-t of m&i3 t&ail$2,000 outof ~.z~-:,,i. the ~fuads~~~~.Qf.-~sf~~ .aotlzztJr ati ~5 &l-l? fh- '~ i :z. Mbltedby the ijtatute mentfoned unless the requlre- miants~-the?!eofi ~.o~lied'vith..,~'sfie;la~g~ 'of i the :statuteti%Lsar; ~urmnb~guoi16;~'and ~wnphixtiii.~' The legiS%ati~ intf3llt and purpOSe 16 lI@nif8St, and the lti~~x%hould ihe~ebser&d and .givenSull~effectby the cominlssloners~ oourts of the state. The penalty for Sallure to oomply wkth its terms Is prescribed in artlole ~%68b, quoted above. Th+ penalty Soti suqh failure is that the oontraot'~6hall be woid and shall not be enfM%eable Ln ang oo@ of this state. !l'he facts shovLng,a.failye to 6-1~ wSth ::thb'~lWgQ3- lative~actin ,qasstion,in the..preaent lnstanae,were _ .fjU&l.y~al~l&ged 3.nthe:app&lant's petition &d estab- lished by-the unoontrovertehfestlmony,and ,thkappel- ' lant was -entitlgd, we believe, to.the peliaf p??ayeW for in its petl$Wn, ax@ authoricedby the atat&ej~~~name- ly, that the per?Formanoe of'tba oontraot and payment of MY .anymoney thereunderbe enjoined. "We also are of the opinion that sinoe the appellant'smules, wagon, &nd harness vere disposed of by the aonrmissfoners~aourt under the oontract In question,a OoAtWct lnhibi$ed by law, the entlre transaotlonwas void and said property or Its value reooverable by the oounty. . 6 .' In the case OS K.ellyY. Coohmn County, et al., 82 S. W. (2d) 641, the Commission of Appeals was pass- on the validity OS a contract sxeouted by Coohran County in twenty identloal Instruments. each oovering a 1/2Oth part OS a oon- tlnuous stretch of road construction, the evident purpose of having said contract so executed being to avoid aompllance vlth Zion.C:J, Wilds, Page 6