OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
:._‘.a’ i,* AUSTIN
Bon. Fred Norris, peg8 2
d&putlaa, aaalatanta or olarka, atatlag by sworn
appllaetlon the number naa4ed, the position to be
filled end the amountto be paid. Said applloetlon
ah811 be eaoompanlad by a atatenmnt ehoulng the
probable reoaipta rrom fess, oonmilaalona end oom-
penaatlon to be oollaoted by said oirioe during the
tleoal year and the probeble aiaburaemente Wloh
ah811 inolude all aahriaa end axpanaaa of said
oiiloa~ and aeld court ahall leaks its order auth-
orirlng the eppointmant 0r auoh deputies, aaelatenta
and obrka end Six the oomp@naatlon to b4 paid them
within the lfmitatlona herein praaorlbad and dater-
mine the number to be appointed as in tha dlaosatIoo
or said oourt nuy be propart provided that In no case
shall the ~Commlaaloner6~ Court or any member thereof
lttampt to influanoa the appolntmMt 0r any p4raon
as Qaputy, aa818t8nt or &ark In any offloe. Upon
the entry or aueh order the orlloera applyfng for
auoh aaalatanta, deputies or clerks ahall be auth-
orized to appoint them; provided that said wmpanaa-
tion ahell not aroaad the maximum amount harelnatter
sot sut. The oompanaation uhioh may be allorad to
the daputlaa, aa~latanta or clerk8 abova named for
their earvleoa shell be a raaBoneble one, not to
4xoaad the rollowhg 8mourtta~
“1. In aountka harfng a popul.atlon of twanty-
firs thousand (25,000) or lees lnhebitanta, firat
assistant or 4hi8r deputy not to lx o a a d ltlg b ta a n
Hundr ed(bl800.00) Dollero per annrrai other aasfatQata,
deputies or olarka not to axaead Flftesn Kuntlrrd
($1500.00) Dollars per annum laeh.”
Thus ~8 ass that the oommiaa1onare~ eourt is empowered to
either authorize your county attorney to appoint Ip aaalatant
or to rajaot his applioatl~n for au& euthorlty, as the majority
0r the oourt may dasm wigs end proper. In oase the aourt datar-
mines that an assistant should be allowed, neither the oourt nor
any member thereof has any powar’ovar naming the lndlridual.
Tarrant County v. Smith (Tex. Clv. kpp.) 81 5. K. (2nd) 557;
State V. Johnson (T4x. Clv. kpp.) 58 S. P. (2d) 110.
In allowing the county attorney the aer~loaa Or en eaaia-
tad, or aaslatenta, ii your 00mtulealonara~ oourt does 80, the
salary to be paid by the wunty should be fixed in the order4
Eon. Irad BIorri a, page 8
in the 4ourt~a dla4ratlon the salary m47 not “a~oaa4n the amount
Btated in k%ialO bOWi, aupra. As no minimum la pr4aerlbad;
there la no prohibition of a salary as Low as $1.00 mr y~r.
The amount of t&e salary would rest v&thin the dlaoretlon of the
*o&St.
ita know of no rsaaon baaed upon an9 provision of the
statutes or Conetltution whlah rroul6 praolud4 the ootity attor-
nay from p&ng his aarlatant l$ditlonal aompanaatian from his
awn runda. Suoh ratter ~+ulld bo inths antuse oi 8 private
aontraot bafmaan the parties.
four n4xt quration la whath4r ui eaalatant ocmaty attar-
nay la required to make bond. Whll4 the 4tatuta8 provide that
oartain. daputiar, 4mployasa an4 eaalataeta shall glv4 bonds,
(a. Q-. sheriffa, art. OS?0 R4rlaod ~1~11 Statuka, 1986; tax
oollootar8, Art. 6881, ata.1, w4 rind no lu4h nqul~uent as
to arrlataetr oounty attema While 'krtlok b81, Retired airi
Statutea, 19125, reguiraa a8 Is*atanta oouhty.attamoy~ta her4 the
aa~~ wpUalifj.eatlenam as th4lr prlaoi alad we think it olaar the
taw has raiaranoa to the “wtalliriaat P on8 repuirti M luoh
oounty attorney8 Uat4d un&r Art1014 838, 1.0.~ @hall be duly
lloenae6 &a an 8ttomey an& mutt raaldd in the oouaty where
la svlng . Thardore, y o uare advised th a in t Our a p f& iiOn luo b
assistant, may not be required to make bond.
loup Qaxt wish to kn4w whath4r, if th4 o a unty ltt4rnay
joins th4 lr4, ha 44ul.d require the payment or him lelary;
also tha ,Hlary or hia aa8lafant $ 4fa0, rQathar the sot of joln-
ing thi lnq rauld be a 4urrioiant vacation 0r the atiioa that
the ~mi8alan4ra' oourt ootid detG.ara the ofilaa vaoant and
RDDtiint 8 new aounty attom4y.
Olearly, It the orrlee is raoatod by auoh aotlan an the
part ot the oounty lttom4y, the oounty would not owe the salary
t4 4ith4r th4 prinoipal or t4 the aaalataut~ On th4 other hand,
if th4 ofilos 14 not vasetad, ff the county 4ttornay ratalnr the
44~~. thou@ 4nllatsd In the araiy, ho would be rntitlsd to its
smo1uPrnte. Thesefore the all importmt question la whether
the oo%miadonera* court fe authQriae6 to dealare a vaoanoy an&
make an appointment.
In ths oaae 0r Iiamilton V. Xing (TSX.Ciir&?&L, lQZe1, 206
S. pi. 958, appellant Raaeilton wa4 sh4 duly alaotad county attor-
ney or &&bin4 County, had entar4d upon the dutl44 of his Ott104
@id had appointad a deputy. Iis WRB inducted intm the army in
Hon. %red Norris, pa&e 4
isarch, 1918f in September of the oaomo year the
court doalared the otiioo vaoant and appointed qqollee King
oounty~ attmiby, notwlthstendln& that k~U.Eon~s assistant
had at ell times dis&arged {during appellant’c absscce) the
duties Gi' the Office, go Quota .f~rt3.ue.nt perta of tbs oourtls
opinion;
n
. . There oan be na doubt or the ocrreot-
riolo of they appellant- th at the
UO2UU.isrlonersl oourt of c oeuEtr in this'stat
has no anthoritP i)r power to remove from ottloo
auy county ofiiolal or to declare a vaoanoy Ln
anY ouoh offioe. but ouoh mthority Deems to bye
tested alone in the dimtriot oourt. coMtitutfon
f the State of ima Art, 6 B r?i It im pro-
iidod by Seotlon 81 a! the #ame A&iols of the
Constitution, howorer, that, in oaoo of a raoanoy
in the ottice of oounty ottoraey, tbo *nsmlorfon-
era* court of ouoh eeu~ty ohal.lhkeve powor to ap-
point a aounty attome]r until the a*rt genortil
cleation. Sea Tao, Bhlinger t. Rankin, 9 Ter.
Cir. ApPe 484, %Q8. W; S!Io. -the atiqet~o~~ to
be detewlnti is, not whs%her %ho aomi 1 9
oourt of Sabin6 County W&I aothorlroa to deoloro
a vaeanw in the orfioa of uountlr tt0m0p of
fiablne Oounty. but the ~tmstion Is: 11(authem a
06 to be tl1l.o
was oush vaoano~ shown by the pleading&in thro
oaso?
*As stated above, It io alls6od by appellant
that he MI a oltleen~ of 3abino Oounty, and that
he wao only temporar,ily abrexit ~IWQ Cho oounty,
and that he had never been fn any msrinor lprpeaohed
by any oompetont aathhbrity, nor hio (PII~G@ doolar66
vaoant by any euthorited tribunal, on6 that tho
duties of the 0rfic0 *rem mti3.l boin,S dizohurged
by Biro thm ugh hio legally oonstftutod assfotant.
On tho other Send, the ohowing~ made by appellor,
In his answer wals, net that eppallant had removed
permanently trem Sabiw Oeunty, but rim~ly that he
was absent ?rom the otmnty at the tima of the aotlon
of th.6 oorsnaleslonerrf court in deolarlng the oliios
lion. Fred Norris, pa4e 5
vacant end appointing appellee the&o, end that
appellant hRd been 80 absent Worn said covunty
shoe mroh before suck action on the part of the
oormnieeionere~ court it September following, and
the t eudh absswta w&a oauaed by the fact that
appellant had been inducted involuntarily into
the Army of the United States. This alla&Ion
of the anewnr showed,of oourm, that eppellent
wae actuelly absant from Sablne County et the
time of euah aotion on the part of the oonmirslon-
ore* oourt; but as to how long euoh absence would
oontinue we not ehown, nor wae any faot alleged
in the answer from which the dumtion of appellant’s
absenoe oould be determined, other then the state-
mnt that he wae in the military service of the
United States involuntarily.
Ilone Prod iiorri5, page b
plsedinge in thLe oese upon whfch alone the die-
trict judge crlted In d,enying the temporary in-
junction, and for that reaeon we are of the opln-
ion that, ae the pleadinee stood, appellant we8
entitled to the writ 88 preyed for, end that the
dietriot jud e erred in denying eem~,~ (Under-
soaring Our6‘5
It 1s our opinion thst under the fixate eubmltted by you,
the comisalonere~ court of Polk Gounty my not declare that
a vaoanoy edst8 in the offiCe of oounty attorney upon hi6
mrely entering the army, end appoint a euooe8eor to the pre-
sent inoumbent.
It ie our further opinion that under Be6tion
M or
krtiole S or the Conrtitutlon of Texas and Articlee
5970, et
seq., Vernon’o Annotetad Clril Stetutw te dr-
juriedlotlon
termine the setter of vaitaney in the ofkoe of oourity attorney ie
vested in the district court. The cult Is in the neture of 8
quo warrento end met be Instituted an6 oonduoted In the name
et the State of’ Texas by or under the direction of the dlr-
trlot atbm*y. State v, Starnee (T.c.A.) !?Ab S. W. 4Ma
lIewe v. Stats (T.C.A.) e!B Y. E. 677: Joh&on v. )r:ooney
(T.C.A.) Ei41 S. ii'. SOS:
You are further advised that until a vaeenay 18 eetebl .t eh-
ed, both the co%ty attorney and i&i assj,stent “re- sntlqep_ t 0
thelr pay from the county8 the oounty attornsy to hi0 68tabli Cdl-
ad rtatu’tory sal@q and the e~srl'rt~knt to the salary fixed by
the court under the prwiaions of Artiolo 3008, $upra.
.Trusting the above eatiefactorlly answer6 your Inquiry,
we are ,.
Yourr very truly
ATTOW OENml. or TXAS
rBp
/
B
Ben&u&z C;ooball
A8si atant