OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonorable Ben J. Dean
Dlstrlat Attorney
Breokenfldge , Texar
Dear Sir:.
of Texan, 19Z5, 1s to be foil
illed in the dlstrlot uourt o
on of the80 tw.0
artlelas that rke ior the same
8enlce arm tees to the Qounty
at aounty court
oaee8 do no he Ibaa or the
amount lnrol~e6
NO. 699 or the regular
glslature, veraQJl'8 Texar
166, the jurlsdlctlon of the County
was dlmlinlshed in that clrll and
*Is it your opinion that the Distrlot C&k of
Gtbphtins County, lq oases filed h the dlstrlot oourt
that 6rblnarIly would be tile& in the county oourt had
not the jurlefllotlon been trannfarrod tothe dletrlot
oourt, would be entitled to charge for reos' the rater
presorlbed in Article gQg7 or would he be requlrod to
charge for fees the rates proscribe& in Article 5950
which governs ooun~ty court fee&V*
Hoat Ben J. Dean, Page 2
Ad1018 5929, Revised Civil Statute6 at Texas, 1926, pro-
video the authority of dirtriot clerks to oharge aud colleot fees
for rrenloes rendered by them la civil oases.
Artlole 3950, Pevllred Civil Statutes or Tescm, 1926, is
the authority for lmmralag and eolleotlng reel, by the county clerk.
Botise Bill No. 699, acta of the Regular Session of the
Party-sixth Legislature provides, in part, aa follows:
“That the District Court having jurisdiatloa la said
Stephens County shell have and exerolse jurladlctlon in all
matters and oases of a olvll aud oriulnal nature, whether
the ssme be of original jurisdiction or or appellate
iurisdiatlon, over which, by the General Jaws ot the state
of Taxes now existing lad hereinafter eaaoted the County
.Court of maid County would have had jurlediotion, and that all
pending 01~11 aad erlminal oases be and the same are .herebby
~tiansferred to the District Court for the Hlaetleth Judicial
Dlstrlct of Texas, aittlag la Stephens Couaty, Texas, and
all writs and procam heretotore lsaued by or out of said
Couhty Court in maid civil or orimihal oases be and the same
are hereby made returnable to the next term of the District
Court, in ahd for the Ninetieth Judlolal District of Texas
altting la Stephena County, Texas. Provided, however, that
there rhall not be trausierred to raid District Court Jurls-
dlotlon over any judgmeata, even in olvll or criminal oases,
rendered prior to the time thla Act takes rffeot and which
have beaome final, but as to such judgments the aald Couuty
Court #hell retain jurlsdiotion for the entorcement then-
of by oxeoutlon, order of sale, or other appropriate pro-
oess. . . *
Thus, it la seen;that the Legislature, in its wlrdom, hag
seen Tit to broaden the scope of jurisdiotlon of the District Cbrtrt
of Stephens County, Texas. By the very nature of the duties of the
District Clerk of Stephens County, he is charged with keeping the
reoorde of the proceeding6 in the district Court to which he Is
’ attaohed. As a neoessary Incident to the oourt’8 broadened powers
the ~dlstrlct olerk 18 given increased dutiee $0 pertom. Hou?e Bill
Do. 599, supra, makes no provision6 for litigants in the district
court, rho. previous to the passage of ruoh atit, would have paid
fees into the office of oouhty clerk, to continue paying the schedule
of fees set out in Artiole SQSO, supra.
Ne necessarily reach the conclusion, and you are SO advised,
that all litigants in the Dietriot Court of Stephens County whether
there by virtue of the original jurisdiatlon or such court prior to
Boa. Ben J. Dean, Page 9
the passage o? Eouaa Bill No. 599, or then necessarily by reason
or its broadened jurladiotion, are amenable to and mat pay the ?eee
provided ror in Artlole 9928, aupra.
Truetlng that thla'aatla?aotorily anmera your inquiry,
wa ara
Yours very truly
ATTORKEY GlXEFtALOF TEXAS
LA;ob
APPROVISI)
XC-L21, 1959
13. NOOre
FIRST A8s18TANT
ATTORNEY WHERAL ;;ps; Opinion Comlttea
. . ., Chairman
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion