Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ‘T’EXA8 AUSTIN Eoaonblo 8. 7. 1888ok8, Dow Er. fur0k8: wo b o g to lo&towl*dgo 8a opintoa at thir do*tamt t1onal1t7 0r th e lb,ovr-eapti $ootlon 1 o? tho then ruoh nil or othudn to t&o perroB ?a@?4 to auwu tho nmm b7 the jurtloo of tho poaaa or olark of the ooart, ad on rooolpt of mob laturo lto r lo rr 0.h p uma a h a nb ll .mo M lBWU t o rooh horro rad rotum the M a Ito lf4 o lo r okr o fth ep er 00 *a dio r h o o ur otr .ju& o e*i t th ep a no a*h & hare full powor to o-1 uuIO?I thereto," 8ootlon 8 pro*ldor, wh e na nluoutlol¶ l@lnrt tbr propert of th0 Judgment 4obtm or w or rrteral debtorr b th0 I- UQUMB~;ir return0a unOOti8ii0d i la whole or a part or U tho plalntitf or other parron la pl&tUVo behalf, Jtor tho lrru.anoo o fa nlx e o utlo la r lno t roport7, rlmll make and lilo aa lit f &at&t Pa woh 0600 rlth tho~olork of thr ow or )urtloe oi the p0000, t0 th0 lrr00t the thr jownt d0bt0r he0 '"fe'"{ lnoopo, luala~a or prorltr, dooorlb 4 &a 8~0, vhloh d debtor tanJaW- 1 rofurota;o : plr towar@ the latlrirotlon or toF: a & $ u l@ wntlrdltor dull bo enmtl19 1 to iw I mabpoma iame4 qut OS tho ouo wherola moh d-t uou, bt the crlorlt or tho oouraor wtlw 0f tbh -00 arl~ on toti ol iior 4iok, ropulrbg tho )ud@i#nt do1tar, under ponaltr of ooatanpt of oourt io ia othu lar)oo to l99eu kfon tho jaUgo af mob oonri or ~otiloo of tho pe800 rt.a tlmo to b , l loltlo4 l o no er n! thoran end n&o Bwom uIDuor a( the aatcre UL~lxtoat or hlr prop- lrt7, looumo, larnl4r or proiltr.- loooaoo of the bill 321 0 18 t&t it authorizer a proooo6lq La the MtuN of dlroorerr, on6 lo not on at- trrpt to sbrue or dt7 the ooartltutlolul or ltatotor7 p r o vlolx loa nr mp ourront tla gryor ior perrorml aorvlce. Oa the oomtrOtf, it purport0 to lttrot 0112.7 non-uapt 7-R-t7* vo lxuine6 th e bill to dotoMlne rhothor a to the inralldity oi laprlronl~ ono ror . Honorable 8. t. fmarlu - -0 8 ment Iobtor property or ohoroo in lotlon to thoo%tont omo shall not bo oxenpt anil order thet tho adgmolt or lxooatloa shall bo a oontinulng J len thUOOn froa the &at0 ruoh ONOr 10 mndo agalnot the judgment bobtori rnd oaf1 u o or ju8tlO lf a tho a00 shall hat0 I’ful powor to rnforoo alr orduo *al ~eorooo lnfbr prami andor forooloruro or othrr- UIM, or at say ruoh hodng proooedln l .ma7 bo had, when lpproprIrto, fer tho lppl li.oa- tloa ot luoh pro rt or ohorer in lotlon toward tho oatlo PIsot on of tha ju6gmont as provided upon rotura of in rxooutlon.* The bill oonteaplatoo that upon a hearing the oourt -7 order the jukgnbnt 6obttw to apply ln7 proport in hir ha&r, not 0x-t from lxooi~tlon, to ,tho ntlofaot- tlon of the ja Thlr woul.4 0r oourao lnolulo money. It Ir to bo notY re?ihat prrtioalir lrotlo8 io.8 not rlrlt th0 poMltlO8 of 008tA8pt fOr a rOfuU1 t0 m&k0 mUOhlpphl- oatlea; but rhothor no or pot;ro an laoIdontal ponr, tho ’ oourt would be ruthorfsod bl tho tumo of tho Aot to on- toroe his order8 through oontampt groere41 o. In an7 rrent, hmotor whore non-oxupt proportf, Yn oluain( 1on.7, in the pooooodoa of the drrondant bar bean btought un4u the oontbol of tho oourt in tha maxutor oaatemplrted by the bill aftu 8 hurl4 la orduly proooeg the oourt would be dthln tho teN of thr b,111 and tho*bill itseli wa think, would bo within ooiwtltubmal liritatlono, &4 tho oourt nl.&tt or4u its ~ollro~ to tho ju&gmeat onbitor, if th0 impouabd prdputy oonrln~ or mne7, or ii it 001~. 8lote& of other g0rt7~ ooul& or(lrr the mma rold lm opoa lx b o o tioa and , fr l p r o o wP o lRplio4 to tho pwmont of the judgment. 8uoh 8 prooeedlag would bo no boolo ror tho oon- tontion that thm juQm@nt dobtor, u n bdry rlned ror oon- tempt In 4loob~7l4 the order, weal 4”be Imprlroned IRpTdebt. Tho authorities abundantly lup9ort this OonoluoIon. 8-c Ronorublo d. Jr Xurrko - pago 4 Wll Ion v. Colusbla Carunltr Co.. 160 :o r.~6kto, Ms. r.~iTal ;h t. 8dth, M At& 00; 14 v~~Rea#on, t8l 6. lf. WS; me v. stonu l8 'PO. 4611 7 7. Punot, 44 1. X. 6091 r. *I EuTington'o Y.otate, 1 Pao. t1 6l5Oi Sam rl v. Dodd, 14% 7ord.. b@l ‘rI0r.t. Laorio, t9 Ye& 1981 i:’ I. tr 8. p. 594, Sub-titlr lContempt.. The l&l oonorptlon in oaoh a olttu~loa IO that thr oommltmant r0r rontmpt lo mot a cmw4ft8ieat ror non- ~yntonf of tin debt, but on tha other lmlll, Ir the ercrolro 0r 8 asoosrarIl~ inolaentel power to lnroroo tbc mid or- duo bt the oowt for dollvery or funds or prcpirtr In ao- c o r da no owith th e ordu Or th, OOUTt up o nl b r uin& . Rirlthrr IO the bill wanting In buo prooooo. It ir t?ue tho bill la Sootlon 8 authorho& tbo oourt, upon a hear- $4 0r ~7 ouoh proco04i~ oupplr8*nkry to lx ~eutio to~, ordu the u@uoat dabtor to Bp 17 aa pro rty not exempt rror neou t ion to the utidrot Poa M the !?udmnt. But it lo to bo 8ooa thrt this 18 ml7 dono artor a hoarI%, and a baring nooosouily LPpUoo l legal howing, lao of mhlah 011 ltiorroto~ putlee NW .to ha+0 notlro and op?ortaoit7 to br hear&. The GeOtiofUr n th l Or UthurIt88,tha judge o r justloo bi the praoo at ouch heatiry to ontoroo all or&err awl cleorrro la the prdooo wdorfbnoleoara or otbanloo, but this would not bo oonatror& to give to the juotlor oi the p-00, ror ln- otanoo jurIodlotloa to toreolooo a l;rs upon proprrty of rhioh ft ~oald ot?eruloe not have jurlodiotloq, beow~oo the prooodlng thrrr oontoa lat.04 lo l torooloouro OS thr lion rrloiry fro8 the urout POE Urootlng Ito uk so,In orainuy oaoe8 of lev or the writ lrroe4 upon 0mti0ri0d ju4gmento. The courts wI 11 aot adopt a ooaotruotIoa OS an lot that roul& destroy tho aot, but on the oontruy, wool4 Wo uiok to adopt a oonotruotlon that ,would oavo the lot -. that f 8, nuke It li- r00tirh Thorn IO eoa8Wnble amb@Atf la B8otlon I of the bill. It is indefinite and very difficult of underotandine. It ia possibly open to the vice that there la no leeal basis :~a:hf.‘~:~f~::Pn’~o~~h;~,~::~tl~~t.~~bt it muat bo olrrr - bqoad a nrroaabl, doa t - t&t the rot lr la tlohtloa of the Ooartltutlor to authorize 8 oourt to ooaaeaa it. .ThO8OOtiOaright b. bd t0 b8 TOi& r0r inwini*0n088, bat thir se~l4 not br 8 roa8tltutlon8l ~100, rlaoo 8a merinit0 or rmaiagllrrr art 18 l adllty. hen tho h thr reotioa of lxeaptioar rhool4 br rtriokoa for ooartY tutload iarrlllllt~, under the 8eprnbSllt 018ur0 ;;r;h:o;lll, -that motion rloar roula iall, aad not z bo.m- . The a ham been u&r to 'ua that tho bill la tlo n 18 unooartltutlonr Y in 8uthorltlng 8 prooeralry lg8lart the Fodenl or state f3otrrrmont, or it8 tlon ha8 brra oalled to BUOhuua v. Lsr ld. SST.nut thlr owe 8rsordO gestloa. Th8t 088e did not oonslder say oonatlt~tlonal ln- falldlty la the 8tdute or prooeedlng lnrolted, but on the oontrar'f, aerelr held that rtlndrin the hand8 or 8 gotom- mantel ag?nt did not ooartltute ropbrty ab the jadmeat debtor, nor a debt owing to him tr luoh agent, under l rt8ttate rllilar to the bill beforo urn. The oourt raid: *TM fun48 of the 00tmameat Or0 rpeoliloal- ly appreprlated to certain Hatloaal objeotr, rd ii raoh ipproprldloar ul be diverted aa4 &a- rmtoa br atdo prooerr or othonlre, the tuna- tloar of tha oorernwllt uy bo rurpoadod. SO ... 10~ 81 money remlne la the hand8 of 8 dlsburr- lag oifloer it 18 a8 lah thr money af the United State8 aa if it bd not been dnun from thr trrar- VI* Until paid over by the agent li the Ootern- aeat to tb pOrion~eatitled to it the fundr oaa not, la any legal eeMe, be oonrl~ena l p er t 0r hlr lffeotr. Thr purrer 18 dot the debtor of the 8eamea.* The mm ml1116 would no doubt br made andol tho prereat bill, ii lt rem a law,.aad the doternmeat or it8 agent was rowht to be:bhelO, oader it@ prorl816ar. ‘Ko le no t pbplre4 to hold that 8, B, 869 lr rleuly iorbld6eo br •~ clolutlktlosal poviriO& APPROVRD MAR 81, 194S Order s*ll*rr w FIRST A~SISTART ATTORHSY OBmR&L Oole ipeu Arrlrtaat