Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

a OFFICE OF T?iE Al-l-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAG AUSTIN Dwr sir: opfrrricn HO. o-3568 .-.. Ro: Conjxnsstion of oounty hi@ivay pstrolzm. Pour lottar requesting the o*Giou of this IIS- per&ant, besn,rs- upon the q~,uastlOmetntod~horain,.kree ocrived. Tho~qusstims prcvmtod ara ~06~follows: *For gr?idar?ce in mttarn thht in all prob-. abll~ity1411 arice ?n t!zan6ar fitur0, gill you pls’cm3 advise this oifico vhistjxrSemte Bill 278; poesod by the Forty-first LG~iShtUrG, xeg- ulor s3seiol5,Cz2ptei-150, P.g6 326,,is still. In form3 v.nd cffaot. If this act iti,stillin effzct, ~511 it or Article $699.~ msnded,,1937; 45th Ln@3htUrO, 3.. &3e, Ch. 225, SaC. 1, Coil-; trcl in nnxnr~County, s?r,sothe Guprax! Court oltes the lnttar,.AHiols 6699 ao~amnded, P,S belrg theemw ax4+stlng authority for e hishmy I patrol?. Vhe rcling'of th t%prerx Court Haa mde on S&y 14, 19A1, but, of coume, the mn?uta will zot be dalivcrsd until the pariod for ffl- log a x&ion for rehor!rizghas olapsad. Does the Sqc8:aa Court rclir.r, t.sl:c 6ff6Cl;etjthe the ~8 th8 first nrmuncc-,ent, Soy 14, 1941, or Coee ito affectlvensos &Fin fitthe ax~irctlcn oft tlX gr;;fe;rlng wS:tohe ;lotionfor rehem4.y “a: *In tho erar,t.3 :atl.onfor ~rahs.zrlL& is tllsd, sill the ruling tp_kaeffeot at tt13 timo Of tbs first oEI122JXSX6ut,Cl'at the tis8 Of ~ HOll.B.U. Ckwvoy, page 2 elthar denial of the motion or the Teh6sring, if &rantGd, and th8 Ori&in31 IXliw is Ieaf- firaedv" . - In a letter baar+g d3ta of Suna 26, lgJ.l., Sron- orabla Jsy Saa I,m'cy,kcnistsnt CrlralnalCiatrict Attor- nsy of :Gxax County, T~xE!E,etatod in 0.letter ader6ssad t0 thi3 &3F~Xt~Ollt, tht Wincci th6 quc3t:on of ths contitltutionality of Son5t5 3ill 2% Is baforz tha Supxns Court und wril.1likely bs prlssodupcu, vie. a0 not 0x- pact yonroffico to rendsr en opisiion on that que3tion. ficmver, vu do ask thi>i.ycu lmxedinta- ly edvise our Cocnty hualtor .oon&rnin.~the other txo questions psrtaiuing to the effeotive doterof the'judgzent oftha Sui;rezsCourt4 444." Appcrantly, undsr tha facts, aQht county hi$- way pstrolman v:eraappointed by virtue of krticlo 6699b; V6rnon's Annotated Civil Statutes, End tha S:lprnm~ Court Of TgXZ~B in th4 CDS0 Of CIXS. U. ~ZDZ!&SOX, COGXTY ZiJiXE, ET AL, IT,dIXTIFi%IX ZSFXR ~3. X5X, 'ff.Kc&D, SB:ZXW,~ D?IWiDACT 11?~X:T;FXR, azor& othar thih.qshald that'Artiole 6&qb, supra, was unconstitiutionzl. Ho-aver, a'zotion for rahawlng h~ln36an filcidand h3s not yat been passed upon by tha court. ', Tha que3tlon to be datoraluad aoana to bo vihother or not the Gomz13sionars1 Court oan lagally pay tha sla&t &bow nantlonsd hiic.hwappetrolman. Cy virtue of Article 6699, Ysrnon*s Annot-ltadCivil Statutes, the Cozmissionero*~ Court acting in conjunction with the sheriff rr.oy enploy cot 2OrG than txo rqulsr devutieo, nor~xore t&n tm ad- ditioral Ceoutias for special ewrgency to aid sold regu- lor deput'i63to bo knovn 3s county treffic OffiCars to onforce the hi~hwiy law of tkfs stata regu;.atis~tis use of tha rublic highway3 by motor vehiclas. tiathink thot this at3tute i3 3uthorlty for the Con~issio~.~rxi* court to amploy not mora than four dG:UtieS to,~baknov?nas county trsfric officers to cnforca the hlEhr:sp13v:aof tbio atate. Tha further qucstlon 10 mined by your lcttnr wteth3r or not the ss:d county hiShis3ppntrolman are d.e .6%3 ,. Con. E.G. Gamep, page j facto.officer5, An officar de facto ha5 be65 bod.llgdofined is one who has the reputation of bsisg the officer ha aa- suneu to bs, kiaa yat is not 8 G00a offiaar in point of 1m; 81.30is one who, under color of right, enters into the possession of an office and axeraisas the fuuations t!iirjrGOf, or Y&O 0XerCi86~ th6.dutiou of the Officer un- der color of a know end vclid appoinkmnt or election, but falls .to confom to soisePreccdcnt raquireasnt or oozdition, as to take an oath, give a bond, OS the like. ?,%:nerous other &efinltions rL~ilz\sin inport, arc to ba found In the books. Tfiad,octrinaof de facto officers’ Is Eoundad upon poliog and necsssity aad is aoceptga in ord.crto proteot the public and,individuals where they may become involvsd in the rbTrioia1acts of parscns die- chargiw the duties ,of offioero without being lawful of- fleers. Ths lzn validctes their acoessto public and third person3 on tha ground that, though cot officers in ~BH, they are in fact offioera whose acte publio polfoy r3CIu~l'G8 should’be considered valid. ~~&QlT~!i vs. GRAhP- There can be no officer, either -de jurc or da facto, unless thsrs io an offica.to fill; nor can ~thare be such a thing ‘OS a de facto offica. Thcrcfore, beiore a person can be ieesrded~a5 a de ‘faato officer, them mast,be an office ,whlchhe could hold de jura. Thus if the law pw!porting to’meat0 an office is unconstitutiod- al, an assmed Incmbect is not an office Be fagto. (STrlTXVG* GIiL~Zl’TZ’SSSTlrTg,10 8.X’. (26) 984;:V’XATLEY vs. ST(il3,8 S.W. (28) 174;'TSXAS JUBISPFKJDSNCS,Vol. 34, P. 615)., Two par5ons cansot at the same t& be in the actual occupetion end exercise of an office for which the law prcvidos only ona lncu~bbant- 5 rule that applies to en officer d.eSure and~‘asofficer da facto. It follovls thet V%G~Q there is sn offlcar de. jure there can be no room or place for an officer de fecto, car ccn two differ- sat offioara da facto bo in an office fcr vl:lichthe’lavr provides only on3 inctxxbent. (G3BV2T vs. STATE, 3 S.W. w 3761. . : . Bon. E. 0. G&vey, pegi 4. It is equally oleer thet eight persons omnot be de fuoto officers in offices for which the low provides only for ss Article 6699, supre. .Incu!nbcnts Via quote frm STATI vs. GIL.LZTTEISZSTATX, mpra* 1'e eo In oth3rwords, it is urged.that a de facto officer nay exist thongh there be no de- jura officxo Y:e camot uphold tL5.scontentiouo Thare.can be no Officer, either de juro or a~ facto, unless there be an o$fice to fill & * *" Article l?72, Be.mon's Annot5tk Cfvil Statutes,~ provi,des:: Vhe.juclgimnt~pf the Supreme Court shall he final at the.ezpiration ot fif'teen.(15)tiys from the rendition theroof, shesn no motion for rehearing has been fi1ed.a In the above nontior,edease of A.XBRSOR vso FOOD, eupra, a liiotlon for rehasring has bsea filed'and as above atoted, has not baen acted upon by the Supreim Court. ft is our ~opjnlnion that t3e .judgzient In this cas6,mi.U becom final on ths date vjhh8nthe notion for rehearing has bsen actdd upon by saidycourt. (sse the followi% oases; KORN PSO KOax!? 29 S.F. (26) 2055; TZXAS EUPLOYBS IES. AS?CCI?,TIC':? vs. TZAS & P. m. CO., 129 s.Y!, (2d) 746; ffmLIAX3 VS. B;'.4%m&% ?TIOKAL ahI=, 51 s.YJ.(28) 1073). It ~111~ be cotad th3t Articles 6699 and 6699b are substatitiallgthe &me except thet Article 6699b .pro- Sized for the appointment of eight hi&my patrolmn in- staad of,four ae provided by Article 6699. The Comis- sionerst Cwrt and sheriff attempted to act undo Article 6699b when aF;ointins the sight highmy patrol!z:an,Ap- pwently the Co,z%issionersand sheriff diclnot cwmidcr Senate Rill No. 276, nupra, or attdapt to ect xndor it Eon. Et C. Garvey, paega -$ . XTTOF1!!EY GEXE-'&L &dell Kllliaras Xii:& A.?ulatsnti