Q
w. OFFICE OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
\
- AUSTIN
honorable Char . F. Eempbill
County Auditor
Upton county
Rankin, Tens
Dear sirt
fr+r letter of J
opinion or tl¶l6 doper
reada 6s f0110Vlt
aab’Brldge Warrants were to be funded OLIHovem-
ber 9, 19@. In acaordance with the oontpaot
dated April 13, lg’ri? 8aid bonds uedpe to beep
Interest at the sate of 4$ and vece to mature
in a period 0r not over 8i.z yeaw* Fhia inten-
tion referred to chspter 163 of the Aots of the
., n
Honorable Chaa. F. Reaphill, page 2
Regular Seemion or the 47th Laglalature, Rouse
Bill 153. Theme bonda Were never issued due to
the fact that an injunotion lult vaa rmd in
the Matrlot Court vhioh restrained the Comaala-
alonere fr081 iaauing auuh bonda. It appears
that quite a lar)le number of varranta which
were to have been lnaluded in the funding deal
vere issued Illegally.
“I will appreoiate row opin.ion on the
follovingt
Is tha oontraat dated April 13 1940
(shie?~aa never advertised nor aubmlttei to
competitive biddIng) legal @nd binding upon the
Court.
Nil1 the wuranta uUeh are outatmub
l.ng, ::*a leegsl fidebtedner; of the Oountr if
it la found that they wem llle&ally issued, and
oould paplent on same be refused upOa praaenta-
t1oR.”
Apparently 700~PaiS@ the question as to the valid-
ity of the oontraot under ooualderation beomae such eon-
traot iraa not let by oorpetitive bids. We do not have be-
fore ua the oontraot mentfioned in JOUP letter, therefore, Ve
expreaa no opinion am to the validity of lueh eontraot, ex-
oept that oontracts-of the nature involved in thla came in-
volving sp ec ia l lkill and experience, are not wlthln the
ooatemplat5.on of the statute am to oum titlve blda. (Gulf
Bltalithio Company v. Iiueoea Gounty, 1Y S. Y. (2d) 305;
Houston v. Potter, 91 9, Y. 3898 Hunter v. Uhlteaker, 203
8. W. 1096; Douglas v. Hyrlck, 159 5. N. 4223 Qlbaon v.
Da~la, 236 9. Y. 202; Tsokett v. llddleton, 280 8.Y. g8gt
Walboe v. Cormaiaaionepa~ court, 281 S. W. 593; loper v.
Hall, 280 8. 21. 289; city 01’Houston v. Wooer, 89 S. Ii. 4260
&tlole 2368a, Vernon’s Annotated Civil dtatutea; Texas
Jurisprudence, Volume 11, pags:.642.)
It la stated in Texas Jurlapmdenoe, Volume 11,
,paee 6421
“The statute requiring th8t oontrfuxta shall
be let by oompetitive bids la eonatrwd am apply-
ing only to work rhleh la oompetltlve in its
nature; It does not control the ooaaaiaaioneral
Xonorable ahas. F. EemxkhllL page 3
court in contraoting for ler vlo ea requiring ape-
oial aklll, abllit~, or teohnioal 1eamlng. Hw-
ever, It ham been lntlrsted that a oontraot vlth
arohitecte for plea and lervloea lu luperlntend-
ing the ereotlon of a building is within the
terma of the statute. . . .’
Zn view of the foregoing ~00~ are respeotfully ad-
vised that It la our opinion that the above mentioned oon-
tcaot is not invalid beoauae it vaa not let by competitive
bids. In other vorda, 6ontraota involving apeuidl~4r.lll,
ability, or teohnical learning are not within the contempla-
tion OS t&a statute am to oompetltlve~blda. Fha iaot that
the oontract under aonaideratlon vaa not let by ooaqmtitlve
bids does not Invalidate it.
lflth refermoe to your leo o nd Queatlon you axe
advised that IS the outstanding warrantlasntlomd by you,
were illegally issued, lu6h vumata are void md net a
valid obligation agalrmt tlae oounty. Bowever, it la to be
understood that we express no opinlcin 48 to the validity of
lueh varranta ainae we have no inforratlon Whatsoever pew
to auoh werranta. In aonneation with what ve have
hereto
ta’““f ore maid, ve foe1 it proper to state that we express
no 0 lnion ae to the 118billty 0r the oofmtf to pay a rea-
momg le valua for the aervlo~a~ goods 09 uroheadl.ae or
whatever vam obtained bj the oounty by reason or maid mar-
rants.
In oonmatlaa with your leoond question and what
ve have heretofore maid v6 dlreot four attentloa to our opin-
ions Hoe. O-2880 and O-4558, aopiea of them opinlolu am
lnolored herewith.
Yours verr truly
Aaaiatmt
AH:db
Rwloaurea