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