I .
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eoonorable Geo. H, Sheppard $ e
comptroller of Fublio accounts
Austin, Texas
war m. Sheppard:
Your requeskfor opinion conoerni.ng
the above sub jeot-matter is
Control. The
o approve the ao-
urchase contract
ues t by your o&ion
ssed your opinion upon
contention between the prison
rd of Control. with reference
uired to approve thi’s account since
the contract was based primarily on the issue of
installation antI not on the purchas.e of the arti-
ale,
WThe Prison System contends that sinoe the
contract calls for the installation of the
maohinery that the Board of Control would not
.*
Hon. Gee. H. Sheppard, page 2.
be reqtired to ay,prove the estimates or vouch-
ers before this department would be authorize&
to issue warrants in payment thereof..*
Your request npbn which Opinion No. O-2595 ozas
written stated:
*The Stat8 I?oard of Control has refused
to approve this aooount for the reason that
IlO purchase contraot was let by them.n
.
We did, therefore, confine our snswer to the specifio ques-
tion as presented.
& examfnstion of the si&ed ccntract betzveen
Cameron Can Gachlnery
. Company
_ . and the
_ Texas prison ._System_
shozs that the purchase of the machznery contemplated and
required the installation of the same. If the contraot had
been for installation alone, it might not come within the
exqlusivo province of thr Board of Control under Article
634 of the statutes, but the contraot as a whole is one for
the purchase of machinery, such maohinery to bc duly in-
stalled, Since the contract embraces a purchase within the
meaning of Article 634, Revised Civil Statutes, it was one
which could not be let without tho approval of the Board of
Control, the installation of such machinery being sn inci-
dent to the contract of purchase, but of course an integral
part of the one and only oontraot entered into. Ihis form
of oontroct for purchase obviously is the one favored by
the Iexas prison System, for it was executed by the Cystem.
From what vte have said, it follows that the con-
tlYlOt Of FUXhEGU, although it carried with it an e.grecment
for installation of the maohinery purchased, should have
been made by the Board of Control instead of by the Texas
Prison System.
Since the purchase including the installment of
the machinery as we have held, was exclusively the provinoe
of the Board of Control and since said purchase presumably
is one that should have been made upon competitive bids Fn
aooordanoe with the statutes (Article 634, et seq.), the
hoard of Control would have no power to impart validity to
the seller’s claim by an approval of tho audit at this time.
..
Eon*. Gee* H. Sheppard, page 3,
por a full discussion of this question see our Opi’$on
-ho. O-2612, a copy of which aoconpanies this reply..
The clain should not be passed f?r payment.
Yours very truly
mu"
We sp k er
Assistant