OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUOTIN
Harch 16, 1939
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter
Chairman and Exeoutlve Director
Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission
Austin, Texas
Dear Sir:
Opinion No. O-3S5
Gg0a unempr’p;- )
Tie are
20th in which
has the authority
ployment compensat
the following circ
employment Com-
to the State
names of per-
nd the amounts of
are entitled. The
warrants have been re-
person other than the
they are payable and have been
such person not entitl-
ed thereto on the forged indorsement of the
payee.
If such forgeries are discovered before
the forged warrqnts are presented to the State
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter, March 16, 1939, Page 2
Treasurer, payment is refused; where the
for'gery is
not aiscover8a until after payment
has been made by the Treasurer, .the warrant
is promptly returned to the lndorsers there-
or. In any case, payment is either never
made, or, if made, is always recovered.
There seems to be some question, however,
as to the authority of the State Comptroller
to issue to the proper payee a duplicate of
such forged warrant. Will you please aavise
us, therefore, if the State Comptroller is
authorized to issue duplicates of such forged
warrants?
The Comptroller of Public Accounts of the
State of Texas must look to the written law of the
state for his authority to issue duplicate warrants.
His power is circumscribed by statute. drticle 4365,
R.C.S. of Texas, 1925, defines the extent and limita-
tion of that power.
said section reads as follows:
“The Comptroller, when Satisfied that any
original warrant drawn upon the State Treas-
urer has been lost or destroyed, or when any
certificate or other evidence of indebtedness
approved by the auditing board of the State
has been lost is authorizea to issue a dupli-
cate warrant in lieu of the original warrant
or a duplicate or a copy of such certificate,
or other evidence of indebtedness in lieu of
such original; but no such duplicate warrant,
or other evidence of indebtedness, shall is-
sue until the applicant has filed with the
Comptroller his affidavit, stating that he is
the true owner of such instrument, and that
the same is in fact lost or destroyed, and
shall also file with the Comptroller. his bond
in double the amount of the claim with two or
more good and sufficient sureties, payable to
the Governor, to be approved by the ComptrOl-
ler, ana conditioned that the applicant will
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter, Yarch 16, 1939, Page 3
hold the State harmless and return to the
Comptroller, upon demand being made thereror ,
such duplicate6 or copies, or the amount of
money named therein together with all costs
that may accrue against the State on colleot-
ing the same. dfter the issuance of said
duplicate or copy if the Comptroller should
ascertain that the seme was improperly issued,
or that the applicant or party to whomthe
same wns issued was not the owner thereof, he
shall at once demand the return of said aupli-
cat8 or copy if unpaid, or the amount paid out
by the State, if so paid; and, upon failure
of the party to return same or the amount of
money called I or, suit shall be instituted
upon said bona in Travis County.”
The statutes of the state are silent upon the
authority of the Comptroller to issue duplicate war-
rants except in the express instance of loss or destruc-
. tion. Consequently, where a warrant is still in exist-
ence, and the procedure outlined in the above quoted
article, including filing of applicant’s bona, has not
been followed,’ the Comptroller has no authority to’ is-
sue a duplicate.
Yðer the forged warrant has been paid by the
State Treasurer or not, the rightful ayee has no claim
upon the State Comptroller for a dupl Pcate in the ab-
senoe of proof that the original instrument has been
.lost or destroyed. RI6 only redress is against the
wrongdoers guilty of the forgery regardless of the hara-
ship this form of remedy places upon him.
According to 34 T8X. SW. p. 636:
“d state, municipal, county, district or
school warrant is an instrument, generally in
the form of a bill of exchange or Order, drawn
. by an officer upon the person having charge
of the public funds, directing him t0 pay an
amount of money specified to the person named,
or his order, or to bearer. In substance war-
rants are mere promises to pay the amount
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter, Karch 16, 1939, fage 4
specifiecl; they are not bonds, nor are they
negotiable instruments* they are only prima
facie evidencea of an &.iebtedness, serving
as a convenient mode of conducting the public
business."
The original payee remains the rightful owner
of the warrant and is legally entitled to recover it
from the possessor despite successive indorsements.
It is our opinion that Article 4365 prohibits
the issuance of a duplicate warrant where the loss or
destruction of the original has not been called to the ,I
attention and proven to the satisfaction of the Comp- [
troller in the manner provided in said statute.
Trusting that this answers your ,inquiry, we
are
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY
CEMGLOF TEXAS