OFFICE ,OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable M. I".Kleke
@m.~ty Attorney
&Be County
f3lddlxlg8, Texas
en reoeivea and
oardully coneld6reQI we request ar rol-
lomlI'
Law had been
salary fxml
.L
on being advised that
I”
!I:,.
nal, I a0 advised
The Gentwl.sriaaer~e
not app& the aoimunt. The
or then sued ths~Com&seioasr~8
t in form of aertionarl to
n of the Cornmiselonar*e CourB.
devolved around the oonatitu-
a Statute and the Comnieaionerts
aourt did not care to hurt the offleerts dxmd-
ing, he aonaented to bringing this euit agalnat
the county, to have the matter adjudleatsd.
"In a trial In the Diatrlot Court, I, ae
County Attorney, representedthe county, TM
DiBtriCt held thCitthe UOlZTi,&S,3iOneX"6
court
court haQ improperly rejected one or two
small.eritems a6 exprrnee0r offiae, but
held that it ha~properlp acted on the
rmttsr of the $4,000.00 salary. (I am
attaching a copy of the judgment.)
Vha Officer gave notice of appeal,
but later paid into the.oounty treasury
approximately~l,OOO.OO, representingthe
rmney which WAS due the County titer the
oourt held the Special Law raising him
salery unoonstitutional.
Wndsr the oiroumatance~, am I en-
titled to the 10% provided for in Article
the 1925 RdvlesllCivil statutee of
@5i3i3,p"r
e
"In your opi,nionNo. O-665 you seem to
Indloato that I am. In your Optnion o-24lO
,JWUho18 that it ie necessary that mit
must be brought& In the lnatant cabe a suit
riasbrought, although, under the ciroumstances,
by agreement, it 'RIBinetituteQby the Offi-
cer. Xt is my o&nion that in the fors-
:going aituatlon the requirementof Art. 339
which eLatea 'Bs ahall institute suah pro-
ossdingn as eye nsoassary to ao*l the
performance of auoh dutiee - et *9s met by
a suit, althcugh not filed by me."
Under the holding of our,opinionBo. Q-8410 (Con-
ference Oplnlon No. O-3105) whiah ovmrul.es,thatportion
of opinion No. O-665 or thia department applicable to the
questionherein, it is our opinion that your quaation should
be anmered in the negative and It ia I)oanswered.
we enclose herewith a copy of opinion ho. O-e410
for your inrormation,
Xe wish to point out, however, that it 88 not the
duty of the county attorney to defend the suit%againat,i
'._~
:L:
*
4’78
f&i Condm8ionare~ Court and that tha Com+mion8~~~ Court
roulU have authority to pay h5.ma raa8oaabls fee tar the
&&mee of salb suit. See the ea8a of City ZiationalBank
v, PrositlioCounty, I?69. W. 777, which hold that it im
not the legal duty or the aounty attorney to xeprwsnt the
county In euifa affeofing Lte infereet and the oaee OS
Jenee V. Veltman, 171 9. W. a91, rhieh holds that~Comim-
rionerrt Court8 have authority to employ county attorney8
to reprment the county in pending,euitr,
very txu19 yours
AT'iUWXYWSNXRALOX TXA5
PIRST ACSiSTANT
ATTORNEY GEKERAL
.-