;;
OFFICE OF THE AYTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
mmorabla Taylor Carllirlr
QiBiml Distriot Attornq
If% ";y$
,
Attentlunr Mr. Fred V. llaridith
YOU ktt8r 0r wrtlng the opin-
ion of this da~tment on n reti8 in part
** f ollovr I
"Plo8.e
oral'8 0 irri
s8 r
partstent
e in our county
8 for raml**10n
OS the 35 mile
adviae OS your
Volume 26,~peg. 15248
qaartlon vhether ozm who ha8
y or lmproporly lapored upon
the a&mutt so paid may be
oertrin ?aOt?OF8,ahief OS
untary or lnroluntary pay-
PYDS. Ii ths paymilt 18 ads under olroumstaaos8
uhluh amount to eoer01on or dur888, 80 that it
must be regarded a8 an &ntoluntary ma, the
Sine may~nimZl$@;~~~~~sd~ othervlro not.
l'hecare8 In-uhlab it ha8 been held that the
paymant va8 under duror8 ari utu8lly tho80 In
vhloh the auouaed Ya8 imprlsozwd, or va8 throat-
enod vith laprisorupant, rod pamnt of the fine
~OrdJb Taylor Cerli818, Page 2
Ua8 liOO~88U~ t0 avoid Or BeOUT X’sloaaefrOm
such iQWi8OlUWlt. Threaten8d OC aOtUa1 diS-
tralnt or property may, perhaps, also, -- at
least wader SOW OfrOUIS8tUtOe8~ -- bo regarded
a8 8UffiOiMlt to OOrlStitUte ~duresm. But it the
pfQ’a.nt18 by Way of OO~~OBtiSe Beroly, or $8
mada only to avoid ia8onvonienoo or trouble,
In Bailey v. Paulllna, 69 1OllC 463, 25 II.Ii.418, it
~a8 held that ona who paid a ifno under a void ordinanoe vfth-
out protest oould not raoover the money paid. In lierrington
q. Sov York, 81 1. Y. Supp. 667, it was held that one who
paid a ilna WpOSed by a IMglStrPte who had no jU??i8dlOtian
to ipIp it YbS not entitled t0 I’eOOVW the WOnsy paid, when
the p-I&t YES VOhUlt~y. It i8 rtated in the 0888 OS
~oulohan v. Hennob. County, 81 Atl. 449:
It la further stated in A. L. R., Voluum 26,
“It i8 a Well-SOttlSd iaOt.that illegal
,vhere the payment in to arold or aeoure release
] from lmpritonnant r0r nonpayment OS the fine,
it Lelqg held that a payment made under them
Eonorable taylor Curlisle, p8&v 3
OirOUJMt8nO~8 18 UI iIWOlllQt~y Oile,4Rd th4t
the Sine may ba reooooroA.’ (Citing nuwrous
authorities.)
In the ease OS Herrington v. IVevYork, suprs, the
aourt ssld "that won Vhen the aaaured rotrully under un-
lavful Urest St the tiW the PaJWnt VU made, it vould
be neoe88ary to allogo that the payment was prooured by roa-
aon OS suoh det8ntlon. And the mere ellqatlou that paymnt
VII made because a fine imposed vas bald not to sfor dure8v
in rata. It VSS point04 Out by On8 Of the $~dgO8 tbst fiIW8
haA boon ola88itied with tax88 and lioenser in applying the
rule that voluntary payment under 8 mistake 0r law 08mot
bo rsoovered. . . .I(
It .var hold ln tho Oaae OS Bailey v. Paulba, supra,
that one vho hid boon oonvlatod OS violation oS the munioi-
pal ordinanoo vhlah vu rold, but vho.had p8ld, vlthout pro-
test, the Sine wOSvd,.Md had not raised the QUSStiOn 0r
the nlldlty OS the ordinanue, oould not cooover rrom the
mnlolpallty the amount 0r ths rlne, and that this vas true
even though, 8t th8 time it va8 paid, ho was under arrest.
fb OOUrt Stating the qUeStiOn th& VaS prerontod for it8
&OiSiOP Bald:
-The saots appsarlng in the quu$loM aro
tho8.r (1) ~laintiff’a 888i@aoO VSS OOnViStod 8nd
Slnod upon a void ordf!miao. (2) UJJO~his trial
he did not *also 8ay objootlon based upon the
valldlty OS tho ordlnanqe. 3 Ho paid the Sine
Uld OO8t8,VithOUt pCOtO8t. 4 The p8yment vas
11
madeVhllo he VU under clrroat. It i8 rhovn that
th8 paymsnt ves made vlthout proteitj rhloh, lv ve
UnderStand tb lUrguPg0, lbapI th& it YaS M4de by
p~alntlff~r a8slgnor vlthout objootlon, or the
delllal0r tho jUSti OS the alaim, or l**0r t1 o n
OS his own rlgtltr. A wy’a@it SO m8ds 18 regarded
u voluntary; and, In tha absanos OS fraud, de-
Oeit or mi8take Of fMt, the noney OSnnOt bo ro-
oovored baok. .. . It 18 POt alalm8d that the
ddwd8nt in tbs ent was Induoed to m8ke
lud, deoolt or mlvtt%k&:
It i8, hOVOVtSF,iMi8tOd t&t h0 VaS
under d&as, when he made the payment, by reason
gonorable Taylor %rllsle, page 4
0r the raot that he was then under arrert. But
It is not shown by the statement of faots found
In the qwsdlon, as omtifled to us, t&at the
arrest hnd anything to 40 with the pa$ment, or
the defendant was oon8traIned or Influenced there-
by to make it. It Im~not 8hWn that, beoause of
the dIWSSs, or the arrest, the defendat made the
.. payment; nor can suoh a thing ,be Inferred. Ye.
may rs8dlly~pr~esumqthat the defendant..paldthe
fine and costs beoause he,belioved the jud&ment
igaln8t"hlm.ma8 -validi 8radthis we are requlrsd
to pi%SU@E; In.the ,abrenoo OS tiy shoWq OS ob-
‘feO$iOiI,~ Of if $)i&p$~Ikt US8 @ads +dOr pFOtO8t.'
v
'fi','It*has-be& he~d.tl&the a&sent is voluntary and
.&&eSora--lrreooieEajila, vhers, at ti ,e tlms of the
psyxssnt oi
fm dap$8dd, tjho.~eo~ed baa’~‘option
to pay’the fine or’
to &~&BU&&d hs ~C’~QO8e8
t0 do thd rOrIBar,. *rOtA thOU&l -b
jubnqbently appQd.8, and the aoxwlotfon upon cdolol itiset
ggidi.' (D'Aloti v.'3-t, 97 Atl.~.722,~8Sfirmedin 99
Atl. ,189,) At the,tlks'of paymentai tas rliws in thli
oas*, ;thedblendiint~verc uiuior arrest., upbn ocaaplalntror.
.qlqlationof the .oIty'ordlnanoe,having .boen SOntOJWSd to
py ripe or.sow0 time in JaLl.: Fo protest was m8do against
payment of the Sine. . The.oouit Bald that the.le3ality.of~~
U3’eSSOOprIStS I&lfObO.lnl( 4 MFSOKI t0 4ot 83a%nSt hi8 Will,
d doe8 not eri8t rhere.the DeraOn Od uhoa it'18 ohargid,
1t has been exqralsed as an option or oholoe as to whether
he will do the.thIng or partom the aot ml4 to have been
d&is- under ~durers~ that in this ease them were two iOI9iS
or appeal wallablo to the QSoqdant as alternatives to pay-
- the SineS, and t&t it SeQmd to~be the rub that IS
drftUIdfbt8 had 8n alternatIVe to s&ekingthe poysbmt, they
aust be regilded as harm beon voluntary, aad therefore not
reooverablo. The propo8itlon ‘that IS one upon vhca a Sior
Is imposed by a aourt having no juri8dIotIon to try the of-
fepss and lmpore a Sine has an alt8rnatlre to pay the Siao
or to &peal, and payment 18 IlOtl88eZltialto avoid threat-
ened 1mpPIronment, 8 payment with knowledge 0r the fact8 will
be deenmd voluntary, and the money cannot be rsoovered.
It IS Stated in f%X'pU8JUZ'lS,VolWse 49, par30759:
'Noney paid under an unconstitutional or in-
valid statute or ordlnenoe, without any olroum-
stancam of compulsion 18 paid under a mistake 0r
Honorable Taylor Garllslo, page 5
law, and 80 oannot bo reaonred eroopt in so far
as raaovarp is pormittod under &he rule adopted
in most states that paymsats imds by pub110 ofll-
oars under mlstaks OS law are reooverabls.n
WShave saraSUlly oonsldared Artlolo 952, VO~On'S
Annotated Code OS Criminal Pr008&~r8, In oonnsotlon with your
rsquest . This st8tUta authoriaw the governor to remit fines,
hawever, we do not think that this statute haa.any applloa-
tIon to the question under oon8iaoretIon. .
It *Ill be 808n rr0mthe forogolng euthoritioa that
ordinarily the question whether one who has paid a fine il-
‘legally or Improperly lmpoaed upon hfm oan reoover baok the
amount so paid may be S&a to depend upon aortain Saotora
ohief of uhloh 1s that OS vol.pntary or lavoluntary payman&.
Ii the payment~b mad8 unaor olreum8ta.noeewhloh smount to
soerolon or dursss, so that it s#ist be regarded as an In-
‘, volon.tary one, the rin0 maygensrally be rooovered; other-
vise not.
In rlsw or the Songolng authorltles, It Is apparant
that, no oategorioal answer 08n be glvon to your qua&ion. The
gene&xl rules above 8MOUOOOashould be Or some 888fStftZ&OO to
YOU ln astermIning whother or not the Sine and oost, ma bo
rsaovared in a partloular ease, under all the facts an i air-
j- samstanoes sonnaoted thorwith.