Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable Pat Beeke County Attormq Andrewa county Andrew6, %xaa Dear Sir: 9 the vatlua.tlo,a WM a little over rifS or Andrsws GQtulty ta being pria I, end hie fees run over the nmlmua. report ior the year o? me he nhmmd a6 R aFedlt ta himself an Item of $600.00, which he lr elalring au ear expenser but ha failed to make aonthl9 axpemc reports ar previded b9 tit%- cle Ho. 3899, and further even in hlrr fee repart he doen not attempt to itmnlce or explain the be- c%uotion sther thm oar expenee. "Queetiont CM the Oommierionere Court Honorable Pat Beene, page 2 legally allow this Item of $600.00, under the above set out alroumetenoee; to the Dherlff? *The she!%fr or Andrewa County la aleo the Collector an& Atmeasor. of Taxem; and the benk, whloh 1s the County Depoaltory, lr lo- oated In Midland, Texae, and the only plaoe provided ?or his keeping the money, which he colleots, other than In the depo<ory ie 8 vault in the Court house; In April or la&t yenr thlr vault W&IIbroken Into by thlevem, who have never been apprehended, and (407.64 In oash use taken. "QuestIon' 1s the Colleotor responslble ror this loaa, and should It be returned to the County? "Aa above noted for the year of 1938 Andrew County had a valuation of between S and 6 mIllIon, thereZore the orjuntr oommisaioa- era salemlee wae figured on a per diem bar5.e~oi @LOO per day, ror the ydar of 1939. Eaoh Uom- mlasloner, during it& year of 1939, tyrned in his time at eaoh CommIraionc~re" Court meeting, and It wa.a palreed upon ;@d the Clerk Issued a warrant ror ruoh tlpteturned in; ead at the md of the year eaah of the aommlssloners had not drawn all or the maxImumprovPded under Artlole 2360, but theyypaared an order oommand- Ine the olerk~to Ietue a warrant to eaoh oom- ‘mIns4oner In amount of the dtfrerenae between smount reoelred during l[eap and the ILuImum, vhich In th16 Inetence I& ~l~2OO.W. "'Question Gan thIe be legfilly done? SeoUon (a) of Artiole 3899, Vernon's ¬ated Civil Statutes, reads In part a.8 followa: “At the close or each month or his tenure of offloe eaoh offloer named hereIn who Is compen- sated on i fee basle shall make as part of the report now required bp law, nn Itemized and morn statement of all the ootual anti neoeseary expensea Honorable Pat Beene, page 3 Inaurred by him In the oonduct of Me ofrice, such as etatloncry, stampa, telephone, pre- mIums on orrlolale~ bonda, InoludIng the ooet of surety bonds for hIe Deputior, pramIum on flre,,~ burglary, theft, robbery Ineurance pro- teotlng public funda, traveling expenses and other neoesaary expenses. . . Ii suoh expenees be InourreU In eonne tlon uIth any partioular caee, such etatcment ahall name such aaGe. Suoh expense acoount shall be aubjeot to the audit of the County Auditor, If any. otherwise by the Commieelonera’ Court; an& ii It appears that any Item of suoh expense was not Incurred by such orflcer or suah’ltem was not a neoeeeary expense of orfioe, suoh Item shall be by suoh auditor or oourt rejeoted, In which OBR~ the collection6 of such Item may be adjudloated In amy oourt of oompetent jurlsdlotlon. The amount of salaries paid to Aeslstants and Deputlee ahall also be clearly shown by ouch oIflOer, giving the name, poaltlon and amount paid e&oh; and In no event &all auy.offIcer show shy greater. .~ amount than aotually pold any euoh hslettk# or Deputy. tie amount of suoh expenaee, together with the amount ef ralariea paid to Ae6Istants, Deputlee and Clerke ahall be paid out of the fee8 earned by such oftleer. . .* -.. The aaae of Pierson, Justlae of the Peaoe, et al. YE. Calves.ton County,’ lS1 8-U. (I?d) 97, holda, among other things, that a Juetloe of the peaoe ~a6 not entitled to re- cover from the oountg oertaln Item8 of expenee claImed for postage, traveling expetmen, and messenger eervloe during oertaIn years In orrIo@, where the juetloe bid not render monthly etrtements of euoh expenses aa requlred by etatute, but merely filed annual report@ eEtI.metIng the expense bn lump cum emounta. %ierrIng to ArtIale 3899, aupra, we quote from the above mentioned aaee a6 folloua: “The m8nifeet purpoee 0r thle statute was to provide a mean8 0r eeaertalnlng the oorreot- neaa of expense Items eaah month as they are incurred. The s.ctuel exTense6 pald or inaurred oonstltute the mea&ure of the oi’fiolalfe right S$onorebla Pat kene, wage 4 to reaoupment. rhe monthly ltaslratlon la for the proteatlon of the aounty by ef~ording a meane of arasrt~lnlngthe faat (md amount OS euoh claimed item o? expense and whether it WBSproperly ahaxgeablc aa such. It la aanl- feet from the annusl reports and aonflrmed bye the eridenae that th464 expenrer were mere1 estimated end a lump tauroglren eaah year. hhe statute would be of no value ii lts aslutory provlsione oould be evaded in this manner. We hold the ltens nroptrly dlrallowed by the Com- mleaionere~ Court, and the trial aourt's judg- ment oorreat in denying reaovery therefor.* Therefore, your irkret question Is answered, in the negative. In the oar6 of Boggy-~.ys. The Btato, 46 Tax. Rep. p. 10, the defendants filed a%rpealal aneuer, averring that Boggs, as Tu Callmtor, having oolleotecl the tuoa, and being about to 6t&rt to AuatLa dth the rone~, hrd #lSOO.OO of It stolen iron him, without hls raolf, (atstlng thc'eir- oumstanaer of it8 loam.1 fhe plaintiff fllod exaeptUm8 to this answer, whloh was surtbined, whloh 18 aerlgnsd as error. We quote rrf3N)pD the 8bave mentlaneb oas+-as r0nowr: ‘It was oontended by the counsel for the e~pellante that Boggs, being an orrloer,oe- ouplscl tovard the state the position oi a ballee ror hire, In the business of oolleotlng, preserving, and aaoountlng for the taxsa of Rusk Countr, and thet as he took oare of the money in hla hands, as a prudent man would ordlnarlly have done, in refermoe to Ns own property, neither he nor hirr suretlea were responsible ior it6 loee,. 'Ye do not understand suoh to be the legal poaitlon and repponalUl.ity or tht pub110 of- flosr whoae duty It is to colleat and aooount for the money of the atate aa a tax aallaotor, nor is it in aaoondanoa with the terms of hle bond, algnti by hlm ad Me sureitles as pra- aorlbed by lew. 'h la bound to amount for and pay over th? amount of money whloh he oolleata lera Ns Hzn~-ruble Pat Scene, page 5 oommiesIons, or his sureties must do It for him. ” Ne quote from Corpus Jurls 61,‘p.l023,~as follows: ‘A collector of taxes 1s not regarded aa a bsllee of the money collected by him end re- maining In hIe hands, but he Is an insurer of its safety agaInet loss by any means whatever. Be Is therefore responsible for the taxee col- leoted, although he is robbed.of the money or It Is ttolen from him. M The case of American Indemnity Company, et al. vs. State, 104 S.U. (2d) 68, .waE a suit instituted by the atate In the distriot court of Bldalgo County for two dlstknat pur- poses, first, to set aelae the Judgment in @muse No. B-3697, styled The State of Texas v. Brown Land and Cattle Company, et al., and eecona, to recover from 0~. Em. Jonee, former tax collector of HIdalgo county, ae prlnolpal, and the American Indemnity Company, ae surety on his official bonds as tax collector, the sum of *16,379.11, together with Interest, alleged to have been paid out by Jones from funde In hls hands as tax oollector, in oonrorslity dth and under color of the Judgment in aause No. B-3597. We quote from the above mentIoned caee_.as followe: *It was said in the ease of Town of Cameron v. Hicks, 65 W. Va. 484, 64 S.E. 832, 835, 17 Ann. Gas. 926; ‘*y ,the great weight of . authority, the custodian of $ublIc money Is not e ballee, bound only to the exerolse of high degree of care, prudence, and dlllgencefbr lte eafety, and exeueable for the loss thereof by fire, robbery, theft, or bank failure, when such 1013s Is not in any senee due to negligence or mfsconduct oil hi8 part, but a debtor and lnsurer to the extent of the amount received, excueable for no losses except those resulting from acts of God or the pub110 enemy.’ “Thcugh Jones may have paid this money out in good faith and under the belief that It wae his duty to e0 60, es a result of the Judgment In cause No. B-3597, neverthelese, he was an insurer of these funds and his failure to pro- perly account for them to the State of Texas renders him and the surety on’ his offialal bona liable to the State to thet extent. . .*, Han->rhble Pat Beene, Page 6 Your second question is answered in the affirma- tive. Article 2360, Vernon’s Annotated Clvll Statutea, reads In part a6 followe: ‘In oountles having the following assessed valuations, reepectlrely, as shown by the total aeseseed valuatlone of all propertlee certified by the county aseee6or andgproved by the Com- missioners Courts, for county mrposes, for the previous yeer, from time to tlme, the County Commissionera of auoh counties ehall each re- ceive annual ealarles not to exoeed the amounts herein epeoified. eaid salaries to be paid In equal monthly lnetallments, at leaet one-half; and not excfedlng three-fourths, out of the hoad and Zrid e und and the remainder out of the General ‘utid of the County; said asseeeed valua- tions and salariee applloeble thereto being a8 rol.lows: ". . . *In countiee havln~ as&eesed Valuation Of more than Four Million Bive Hundred Thousand- and One Dolhrs ($4 500,001) and lees than 2io Mll- lion uollars (f6,000,000) eeoh oommleeloner shall receive Five Dollars ($6) per day for eaoh day . ‘served a6 oommle&ner, end a like amount when actPng’a6 ex-officlo road euperlntendent in hle Commiesioners Precinct, provided in no event shall his total compensation exoeed Twelve Hundred Dol- lars ($1200) In any one year. a Ae above stated, Andrew6 County had aaE:essed val- uatlons of all properties of between Five Dollar6 ($5) per day for eaoh day served ae commissioner for the year of 1939 and each commissloner turned in hia time at e&h com- mlssinners court meeting, and it wa8 passed upon and the clerk issued B ws~rrant for suoh time turned in. At the end of the ye&r each of the commissioner6 had not dim all Of the maximum provided under Artiole 2350, supa, but the Honorable P6t Srene, pge 7 oommlsei~3-iere~oourt passed en order oommandlng the clerk to 166ue a wsrrant to e6oh oommlasloner in amopnt of the differenoe between the amount reoelved during the year qnd the maximum, which in this lnstanoe wee Twelve Hundred Dollar6 ( 1200). Eadh oommI66ioner la entitled to Five Dollars ( $ 5) per day for each day'actually nerved a6 com- mIesI.:ne , a6 provided In Artlole 2360, 6upr6, and 16 not entltled to the maximum unlees he has aotu6lly 6erVed a6 oommissl-:ner for a 6UffIOient length of time at $5. per day whloh would emount to the maximum of $1200. In thle oon- neotion we interpret the word6 'eaoh day served a6 commIs- eioner* to mean rach day or the time aotually served by eeoh commleoioner in performing the duties of aommlesloner a6 lmpoeed by law and doe6 not Include any time which wa6 not actually served In the performing of then duties a6 oom- miesioner. We quote from Texas Jurls. Vol 34, p. S29 a6 r0ii0w6: *An orrloer 16 entitled to compensation et the rate presorlbsd by the etatute whIoh 16 in foroe when hle eervloes are rendered. Or- dlnarlly statutes and orders making ohangee In the compen6atIon of offlOer6 speak prospeotiv;:;, and will not be given a retroaotlve effeot. may a commlesioners' court make a changed r&e of oompensatlon apply to eervloes already rin- dered. . .* Statute6 prescribing feee for public offloere are striotly oonstrued; hence a right to fee6 may not rest in ImplIoetlon. Where thI6 right is left to construotlon. the language of the law must be oonstrued in favor of the govern- ment. Where a statute 16 ceoable of two conatruotions one of whloh would give an orrlckr comDen6atIon for hi.6 ee&Ioe6 in addition to hi6 salery end the bther not, the later oon- struotlon should be adopted. See the oe6e Of McCall6 v6. City of Rookdale, 245 S.W. 684.; Eastland County v6. Hazel, 288 S.W. 518; Madden v6. Hardy, 50 S.W. 926. In view of the foregolng suthorltleg, your third question Is answered In the neg6tive. Trueting that the foregoing fully answer6 your ln- qulries, we remain Pours very truly ATTOPXEY GENERALOF TEXAS BY /d Ardell Wlllltu116 Resistant