Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAG AUSTIN @#Dc.mAIm --- AT Honorable T. 0. Walton, ~raridmt Agrfoulturaland xoohaaloal co&leg0 0 Collage Strtion, kxaa 8 a.8a minor aad requeat6d p&d ?or this mm&or and of furthor ruoh ftia la the 16 0onoernoQ. Too have lubmitteQ to ua 4Aoag with your opinion requert the oortifiod 00 y of ju&m+at nferred to. meor- poreted in the Judgnuat fs a oopy 0: the potlttoa upon whloh Hoaorable T. 0. Walton, Pass 82 it we8 burred. Brlrfly, the pdltin allegos that Kr. Lynoh is wet alnetean years old aad under twwaty-oae. While it 1s alleged that he reslds8 in flameronOouata, TOraE, wherr he hae barn llvlag with his brother rlnoe the 8uwbr of 1939, the reason glwa In the applloatlon for do8lrlng hlr dlsabllltlee removed Is that hi8 mothsr and father are non- rerld~nta or the State 0r Taxas, that whlla ho clonnldsra hIa- 6eir a resideat of lbxas, ho in compelled to pay the hhh, non-resident student tuition aad that the fuade whloh he ha6 available are rush that ke right aot bo able to oonplsto his 00110ge tralniog if ha la nquind to &my th8 h&h tuition fees ah&rued noa-mrldeat student8 @ad that thenfore from a praotloal stand&at, lt 18 essaatlal to hlm to have hlr dls- abllltles removsd In order that ha isay ooaploto his oollogr eduoatloa. It 18 said la the patltloa that lf the oourt will remove hi8 dlrabllltlrs, than ha oaa legally olala Tox- as oltl?mrhlp* and aa ouch, be Irntltlodto attend the 8ald oollege by p&g the oorqmatlvoly am11 tuition ohargo Twxae rtudents. La th juafpient it 18 found that all 0r the 8tatamats and ~allqptlon8 la 8uoh p8tltIoa are true, tket m. yaoh r88ldrr la Oamroa aouat 18 bowmen alnoteea and two&y--ona years of age, aad that I’t i8 adrl8able aad to air suterlal advantage to have Me dl8abIlltles nmowd. It lr also expns8lp fouad *that hi8 father and aother, Wilbur w. Lyaoh, &ad norrio Lyaoh, am 8aoh of them llvlag, but are non-r88ldontr or the state of Texa8.* Subwotloa E of SIotlon 1, Art1010 SdMG, Vmma'8 civil $titutes, flxe8 the tultloa to bs oharged non-re8ldont etudaatn, aad then oontalas the rollowlaer A non-resident rtudaat ia hrnbr de- flaed*&+'bi a 8tudsnt or 1086 than twenty-on* (81) pare 0r a&e, living away fro0 hi8 f&U aad whorrrfamllp roeidea In another State, or ha8 reolded within thla State fWr wboee rcanrily a period of time less than twalva (le) month8 prior to the date or awglstratlon, or a student or twaaty-one (al) years 0r ego or over who ra- side8 out of the State or who hae rasided,wIth- in tha State ror a period or leas thaa tw&vi) (18) month@ prior to the data of regI8tratioa.* 149 Honorable T. 0. Walton, Fag0 3 Under the above definition,th8 student in quee- tlon is Oltiatlya non-resldWit, ~ale88 ho has boon resaued by the judgniont readers4 in the DiStriQt Court of Caaeron couaty. ror the rea8on6 hereinafter appearing, w8 are of the view that euoh judgxieatha8 not ohaa&ed the StlltUS of this minor as a non-raeldent und&r the above rrtatute. Artloles 5021 and 6922, Veraoa*o Civil 8tatute8, read as follower "Art:010 6921. Minors above the age of niaeteoa yearis,where it shall eggmar to thalr matsrla2 advantage, msy have tholr die- ebllitlea 0r rlnorlty removed, Sd be then- arter hold, ror all legal QUQO8~8, 0r full age, oroapt aa to the right to vote.* *Artiole 5022. The p<lon for euoh so- f&Ovalshall stab the grounda rellod on, whether the parents of the adaor am llvl.nq or &owl, and the aama and rcridoaoe of 0aoh living parant. Suoh potition shall k 8~0111 to by the fatbar or mother or rid minor or by any other oredlblo pereoa oogniaant of Mm faote, and shall ba tlLe4 in the Dlrtrlat Court of the Oounty where the minor ra814~8, and 8 hoarlng he4 on say day of any terniof said Cotrrt,or duriag a vaaatlon of eald CO&~%. Prov:dod that in DiStri0t Courts sf DicltrlOte hwing ni0rethan one.00unty withi.5 SuOh DiS- triot, uponthe riling of suoh petition for naval Of disabllltlas, in the 00UBty inwhloh 8uOh minor resides, the DiStriUt 3Udge Of ml4 COW raryhold suah hsarinp;and ramwe the dlr- 8biliti.68 Of Suoh &OS, in anJ @XUlty WithhI euoh Dlrtrlot wherein hb mey br then ho~dl~ Court or way be found. Am aiaendedAotr, 1939, 46th Led., p. 499, 8 1." Artiole SSG3, Reviead Civil $tatutee, aontains oert.ei,n regulations pertaining to citation and prooedure. The88 8tatut88 oOnertitutoall the statutory law in thil, state on the rubjrot 0r reawal or dieabilitlm or 0lnore. Th8 laot sentence la &rtiCle lfQO8-8 not ia the statute uatll it was a&&s& by an eaend~nt amth by the Forty-sixth 150 Honorable T. 0. Walton, page 4 Legislature. Prior to such amendmmt It had been firmly a8tabliehed that thm requirement oi Article S92& thut the petltlon be tiled in the county whom the minor resided was a jurisdlotlonal one. CUnninf&na V8. Roblron, IS6 S. W. 441; Durrlll vs. Robiuon, 138 8. XT.101. Obvloua4 the only relaratlon fro& the old atatutr made by the aramdnieat was to permit tha proceedIn to ba had in mother oountr in the sama Judioial district when the judge should k hold- ing oourt or for come other masoa be found In woh oth8r county. Bowetm, resldenos of the minor within the dls- trlot was loft jurisdiatioual. Court decisions arising un- der the old statutr are plainly applicable to the umnded not, except aa above stated, and the qumtlon before us does not involve that exosptlon. We quote in full tha opinion of Chief Justice Brown, In burr111 w. Robl8on, eupr8, a6 ?ollorrarr “It appears from the juQF,wmt ot the dls- trict oourt of Traris Oeuat~‘, purporting to muova the dleabllitissof relator, that she was not B resident of the oounty of Travis wlthln the meaning of the mtututo. Her aopllcation showa that she oam to TraYlo OOWity iOr the purpose of gsttlng her dlsrbilitlee rexzoved, and that sha intended as (100~3 ae she accoi?ipllshed that purposs to rntura to Bl Baso eouaty. The oourt reciter In its order that rhe is tempc- rrrily a resident or Travis aountp. The atat- uts provides that the prooeading must bo had In th8 oouaty where the mfner malde8, and, It appurlw upon $hs$aee o? the prooeodin& that ahe Aid nnt reside in Travis eauaty, the ardor is void. Ounnfngham v. Bobleon, 1% 8. W. Ml. Being a &nor, the relator Is not qualltlad to purchase ths kid. Tt Is therefore ordered that the motion be ovdrti~d, at t&o oo8t OZ the re’lator.* lrroea the opinion ot the supreme Court in in Q. C. a s. 0. Ry. co. IS. LmomI, me 8. w. 7s. w8 quote1 It la oortain that the Umaioilo and r.a/d:;ro;if T. $. LomoBs, under any &.aSiJq whloh may be usoribed to thoee words, ~66 in Parkor oouoty until his m&oval. to Dollar and 151 Ronorabla T. 0. WiltOA, Pa@ 5 hle alleged e&fmoIpation; for T. E. Lemma, wae living IA mrkcr county and that aae the domi- oile or frloiether, end It la oettled law IA Texas that the domicile at a &LAOS'child io al- way6 that or the father, snC necossarlly ohanpss with any om3~8 Or t.hs fdtkxs*s ao;ii0ih. RUtb- 8011 I. Randolph, 11 %x. 4b8; Fraaks v. Ffmoook, 1 Poecry,mrsp. Caa. 561, SOP?;Lm~l~g t. megory, 100 Tmr. 314, JlS, 99 6. W. 542, 10 L. R. A. (Hp. s.) 490, 1eS An. St. Rep. 809; First State Bank V. FFIiA,lb7 S. W. 4154. The XWasOn tar this rule is given by J&e Whoalar IA tlM following lbn&,mpe OS Judge Story ir his C4Pillot of Laws, motion 441 ~*xi~or8 are gtmerally bema inoap4ble, proprio surte, ol ohanelog their dorsloile,dur- ing their sIaority.* Hardy f. Da LOOA. Tex. 237. aSchoular statme: **The doxlcils zt or?,& raalna until another i6 laWfully 40v;UixOdtf&Ad,siAUe ti~Crs arm Aot 8ui juries, thmy m%y not change tbrlr danioile dUrIA% their minoritf, though t&ey PJLJ rhea Of 1~11 age.' sohoular*r Do;tsstIORelstions, p. 313. "It la obvloue that the diaablllty of a I&- nor to errsOt E chaaga of doulCfle by aot of hi8 will rests at least in large mmm2e on his pro- mmed lack oi oapaitp to fan tha the Intention, WhIOh 18 t&8 all-iaportant rle3ent 10 lffecting euob a ob'l@e, AAd the l&W mkes A0 bfSti30tiOD~ with respect to thi$ laok of ospacity at the rary- Ing stage8 of ntnority; the presuuptloc being t5a aaam at 10 ye6arsa8 et 18 &orths. BIAoe them is AO important dlffarenoe bstwmn the intention re- quired to srreot a change 0r dc~iolla and to of- feat 8 ahanpe of r~sidmnce, wbdmvmr the word *realUanoe*Is used io the 6enm of a 5cma fixed by inteotion, ooAaurrIDg wit& bodily pmamIMa, it au& be held that the di#sbllIty, whlob prevents the plllnor, through ,11&a?% of capecit~lto hare the 53 Fed. 311; In h Catmon’a E8tat0, 18 Pa. GO. Ct. R. 31E2,214." 3.52 Honorable T. 0. ualton, ~a(gr6 The oase of Laanning va. Oregiwy, 99 S. W. 549, was a habeas corpus case involving the ouat0ay or a ohila. FlVm the OplnlOn Of the Su~rsBm COWA th8r8iQ, We q'lOt8: Ws answer the rlrat question that the ao~lcile or the lnrant rouowea that 0r the father, and, uson the change of the rather.8 a0nii0ih rrom ~eras to ~ouislnna, the in- rant.8 aOrolciisW~IIlik~~i8e changed. . . "To ths thlra Question we snswer, the Ohild being in the lawful ourtody of the rather, his a3ffii0iia ~88 in the atats or Laulslana, ana the al&riot oourt or Bunt oo\:ntyala nat acquire jurlsalotion or the ohlla by raa~J.On of his temporary prssenoe in the stat. of Texas. That oourt baa no authar- ity to adjudge 0 ohangs 0r relation betwsen the fsther and the child. Brown on Jurle- ... I alotlon, 290." t;..,I ,,, '7 On the above point w6 olte also, Emnk 18. Fsln, 157 S*iY* 454; 15 T6X. JUr. p* 715; 19 C. J. p. 411; Wight VS. Wright, 285 $. ‘VS.909. The juagnmnt in the rsmval of alsabllltlee pro- 000aing shows up0n its raos that this younplmo*s paronta w8re non-residents br Texae. ~8 8 ihatter or raot the r0- 03ra shows that It was the noo-realdsnoe or auoh psrente, in V~SW of Art1010 Ea?Ho, whloh prsoipftatsa the ?rOOfJOaing ana produced the advantage relied on tc obtain relier. From the authorities cited above, lt 1s 0,lear that the minor*s resia8n00 0r doJ2icm was test 0r his wrem3. Laok or juriti- diction 1s thus arflmativsly shown in the order it5eir. From Cunningham vs. Roblson, 138 9. W. 441, by the Su~rena Court, we quota: *The author1t.y here aonfarred upon the dls- trict court is not judicial ln its charaoter, but 1s a ~pealal authority, oxtside of the Oon- Btftutional gowertl of tb court. In such alar8 of OUSTS the jud@wM or order entered by the GQUrt iS not 8ntithd to ti38 prOsuptian Or Vu- ity, 08peaially a23 to the juriedlotlon 0r the court, aa would be th8, O~Y(I where the tuAOtiOA psrformd was that of the ordinary juUlcla1 poverir of the court. $rown v. Gheal.ook, 73 Tax. 153 11.0. %dton. Ror;orclbls page 7 385, 12 S. S. 111, 8U: %:arIco 0. k'oElroy, 67 kiss. 547, 7 South, 4G8; Iilndrmn v. C*Conzor, 54 Arc. t27, 16 S. W. 1052, 13 L. Fi. A. 490. . . ." Cur oglolcn follows that the order of the Dls- trlct Court of Cm&r00 County rrttet.pting to rm0ve the die- ablll:ies of thla &nor Goes not affect hln status as a non-re&3ent under 26540. And, olnoe hs 1s under twenty- on8 years of OgS Und his parent8 reside Outrrlde the Stat@ he Is a non-resident -#ithinthe meaning of the statute and subject to tko payment of the rae8 provided In sub-par+ graph 2 0r Section 1 or sala.Article 26540. Yours vfsrytruly ATTORNZY UBiZiIAL OF TEYA‘Z Glans R. Low18 Asslotant APPROVEDOCT 25, 1940 u++--Ll ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS