OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN11
lionomblo R. 5. Yroho
county AuQitor
oregg Couaf
hlgvlev, Texas
mar Sir: opinion lo. O-6624
Re: Should
perty and to keep
st TOU further ask the tollovlng ques-
‘If% Court is authorlrod to employ a psr-
son to take and mlntain such inventory and ouch
person performa lntlrelJ dlffsnnt duties or no
of?lclal &tier pertalnlng to an inventory -
vtat lr the duty, If any, of a county auditor
vlth nspect l
to gproval of varrant for payment
oi such employed
Irrtio1o1651, nov1roaCivil utatutu of Toxw, tier
It pbr dutr to ‘800 to the rtriat onhroommt of the bv gov-
lnda g OeueTfb An008”. Ooneaally*poxking,purdut ia luoh
tftus~navm$d k to utlrQ yeursol?,first, thst t b P.-a
g a d la p er ?o mln& o o r ta lnd?a iOD
w hlr oontmot @T l aployment vlth tho CUmlaiors
lOCaQ, t&t rcoh dutlor mu Ln the dlrcbarp of “OeuntY
Ia thir rospeot vo point out that the tom omaaty burlnor*-
o h e u ldb e g ivenl broad and llboralcautruotion mo le aet te
defwt the plrpoao of the lav. And it 1s hold that the Corlr-
llenors* Cart bar irpllodluthorltq to do vhat may be necerury
in the exorulroof tho dutlor or povora oon?omud upon them.
(City Batlow Eak v. ?nrldlo Cntnty, 26 S. Y. 7751 Olonn vr
Dal&r County Bolr d’ Am Irlaal Lmoa Dirtriot, 275 8. W. 137).
Hovevor, la regard to tho partloular rltuatla la quostlon, ve
hvo ruled that l? apleynont a8 aontraotod for 18 au-
8uoh ty p e
thorlrod w l&v; thoreten, pur duty in thlr nspeat 18 a8 fel-
lovrr A8 Art1010 1661, Revi8edCivil Strtutor of Tua8, provldor
that rll urmntr en the couatJ tru8uror, lxcopt arrant8 for
jum ronloo, mmt bo c@untonlgneQ b tho aoumq rradltor, pur
remod~, ln tho oroat you dotemimct da t ruoh employoolr net dlr-
oharglng tho duties for vhlch ho la eaplryodto porfom as per
your quoetloa,vould be for yau to mfuro to oowtomlgn varrantr
a tho county troarunr kssued to maah omployoo.
TnutLng the r0mgOing ?ullr umvere your queetlen,
vo mu
Teun vary tryiy,
ATTORHHYaIt3muL O? TnAa
Robert L. ktti8oxv, Jr.
Aul8hnt