_ 156
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
e-o.-
--
BonoraEls bert ha-d, Afladnistrator
Texa6 Liquor Oontrol Board
Austin, Texas
Dear Blr(
rbusb666 under
ty property law.
etter reeki the
6 8 ~OpOSitiOll in
ion for line 8ml
to ThiOh T8 rould
Oan T66 ~OlWit3tCVdOTI t&l
ge 0f keeping a gaxtiblinghouse,
ently rppealed from suoh spn-
the dzLmtri6t 6ourt, the aon-
ixlg affAs%ed urob 8,lB39* aad
or rehearing ,being denied May
This msn ~a6 oonaidt~ te the
mktentiary ona the Board of mr-
dona advbee that he ~86 granted a aordi-
tional pardon by the Oorernor on Deaeober
1, 193Qs TO We Ud~ieed th6t hi6 Oiti6@3n-
dip has not been restored and oannot be
rrnt.11the erplration of the nerpnl term
of hi6 Ml-Vi66 in the Oenit~nti~ %Xi the
absence o? the ~oobitional pardon.
Honorable Bert Pord, Adm&l6trator - Page 2
lmhfS~XI’IB
TifOisB OT a p p l;r fo
h gr
8 r ek il
d.ne 8ndb eerp er mit
in hem eo n
lndlrlaual capacity. ~qUaStiOB6b1y an-
der the law rt0 person iu sntitlad to hold
8 liOeIk3e t0 6811 beer if TithiB tTo year8
ilSOSdht&~ pheUedfS3thSf%lillg of&$6 a&b-
plication he has been oomisted of a fel-
PreEumBbly the m rould theref'ore
;%69U1fieb WIti h&y 24,194~,Thicb
T-16 be tT0 tePr8 fFOa the date hi6 con-
rittion became flrml Tith the denial of a
r%h8arlBg on the part 8f the court of
c1'iEtZld AppW16.
aThe teua Liquor Control Act pro-
ride6 a6 causes for carscellation of exist-
ingliceme the tlse of al%cenre tithe
op%raion of 8 bUS%Be66 o%ldIict%d ior the
b%n%flto?any Z'Eoa not anthorlsed by
1aT to hats ml c toWEt iU Soid 1iCenSe.
Cnder the coman%ty property late of 715.x-
as we presueethatthe oop~ho had been
OOBriGt%d TOUld MC%WU~lJ bSB%f+it ir%E
the operation by bis ~iie of e ret-
bear bUEflleS6 ani thW6 i.6 n0 legal a&-
ion ~!Ach might be taken that Tonl$ deny
him the comnnity interest In tha profit6
to be d.erlWd from the bUainW6. it thi6
be true, it TOUid 66601 that the LIse of a
licenoe by the rife TOUld be for the bene-
Sit of a person Bot qnalifidl by la7 to
hare an intereat in the liceaso and that
aacordl.ngl~ the rife rou11I be disquali-
ii& 811 the haaband*E record.*
The mole queetion propounded by you iOr our eon-
sIderation, aa TO lladerstaad it, fo Thether a mrriecl TO-
man lap7be denied a permit to retail win% and beer rhsn
her husband, rho 16 bisqualiii6d Tram receirin 6nch a
perult Tould bemefit thereby, Md6r the COHQl J ty-property
1aT of thlcl &Nate.
It 8886~8 eettl& 1aT that 8 Wied 1018811 my BR-
to the mreimtlle bnsinees rt her rill. 23 2. J. p.
266, from vhich T8 quotss
'PeobniO8lly, l mrrled TcMb8IS w
be a mruhant or trsdbr 8t ~111, So far
%03,4omble gert Portl - swe 3
aa the iarediate transaction o? the
burrine86 is CORC0RMd. That is, she
PaJ own mrahaad%se and warea freely,
pej btlJ or sell then at plessur%
either for cash or on credit, nmy
rent or-.l%as% bulldings or employ
olerks and other help n%e&xl. * l e
If the T&f8 ird%peZdeRtly Of her husbrrrd
should go into the TIM 6nd beer lmtiea he Tolirq not
in any way be liable for her debts. Zhi6 TM, held in
the oats8 of J. P. ElrSbield Q Co. t. g~vans et ux, 613
6. T. (8) 633, amrein the caurt saidt
*mm ealllng falls to 6hOT any
consideratp'on for the rrfbs%qamt
poatae mde'by the husband, Henry
ElmM,-to pap for gooda pce+iously
sold to hi6 rife and for ohfob she
T8T Rot rssponslble. 80 far as the
l&w6 6hOT,itTSS SVerbrrl pFOnr
P em and its further raid Mar the
provisions of the statute ol ?raud.6.*
Ibis oaae reachti the Sup+ete Corrrt and ias
a??iz7lwl, 93 8. u. (2) l43.
It 18 true in the ordinary case, where the ~i?e
goes ints b&Win%66 ?Ol' heroel?, the &U=O?itS from the bUsi-
m6S, if any, Tould by force of lapibeeom the c
property of the ripe and bar husbaod. 23 Ta J. !rzY
Ram the foregoing authorities it lsust be held
that the husband ha8 no inbsrest Thatever in the Tife.6
busimes. It f0110~6 that ii the hnsband should be bem-
fitted ?rom a permit issued to the Ti?e, It Tould not be
by virtue of ray permit In which he m6 interested but
solely because of the profits of the business covered by
f&e persit it&,suefi to the Pi?e alone, and in Tbhich he WaS
not at all iZ2tePEEt%d* 'phe hUEband' l'igbts 00x@ to bir
not from any interest rhich he ha6 in the ~i?e*s business,
bnt solely as a n6btt%r O? lar, Thioh make6 the profit6
8omuuBitY POp%z%Y l
Seither do To agree, under the facts subtitted,
that the profits d;eriveflfrom the Eve's btminees tould
necessarily b% oommnlty poperty. Clearly, the husband
A..,.
.
Roamable Bert Ford - page 4
would not te 8 pMlldt t0 OntOP thi6 bllEiJI%sl),
be -titled
for the reason the
1st doee not al10s om guilty of
that
ltle conduct to reaeive such 6 peradt. Vkre the law de-
aie6 a husband the right to $a Into 6 baaha, or posit
therefrom, bOGau~.98 of hIe oonduct, and the wi?e enters
such business, it.mm.ld seem that the profit6 would be
her separate poperty.
We thfnk both the foregolug co~lolu6lo~ 6m
?ully sap rted by the aelebrmt%d aase o? Dickson v.
otriolrl anr , 2$&i %. 1. lout, in ThiCb the BQhprem6 hurt
OY%PI-Uhd the contention that -6. xlriam A. mrgu66n
aould not quali?y as 6OT~Or beoauee of h&r husbaud*s
impeachnmt~
O-0 fiith cpl06tiOl3
8x-e. Pergimen T6S render
the deoree of the Senete o?.Taxm, 6it-
tingaaawurt0? tmpeaamat, reszodag
her tm6lmxl, Jmmee 8. ~ergn66n, fru61 the
offioe 0?6ovtwnor andadJud.gbg thqthe
be henGsferth disquali?l%d WJ hold auy
offioe a? pow&, trust, or FoPit nndar
the state.
*Appellant's pe61t1oa 16 that the
emlumnts of the office of Bovemor mr%
commnity projwty, and that Jam6 8.
Ferguson oould Eat reaeire hi6 codty
half a? his tire's salery as Qor%rn%r
without riolatitlg the decree of lmpeack-
mnt.
ie mmmes6ary
*It to inguiM iato
the mot etatue 0? the wtfe*6 salary
from publio wfflce a6 69pUat0 or 00~
nmity poperty, under our pesent Oon-
stit&ztion a& statutes. For, if it be
assumed that m6. F6qgl6op’6 661Prf as
Qovernor would b%loog to the QOomuaity
estate of her husband &ml herself, still
James S. Bergnoon Tuald aot be recreir-
ing or sharing uky emolnmentor profit
derived from any oipice held by James
0. Ferguoon und%r the 6tat.b. me eoola-
Pent TOtildbe del’iY%d froPtiil)lA.
P%rgas%n holding an O??We and perform-
hag its dutfee. 6uch a diquall?Saatim
. .
HOnarabl8
Pert Ford - p8ge s
as is here ineisted en could be support-
ed on ne other theory than that of le-
gal Identity of husband snd M.fo, and
that theory TB dsflnitely repldiote, em
it has been unlfmmly refeoted from the
earliest aqpeo determined by thie oonrt.
@Th8 COnstitution forbids the irpa-
8%iOn of p8t3SltiOtt on mnb8~~ Of the
idly of an inpeahad Governor by ds-
oluing that sen8te's ~udgmnt 8f
the
lmpeachmnt shallextend,in sddltien
to &luIahlrreat&t&T ixPdictmt UBl
tria2, 0212 fo remcwal from off&e and
dicgpal 333 cation to hold ofTIm urb%er
th* otat8.
Upon the foregofng authorities you are advised
that it its the 0pid0n O? this d8pkWtlnent that tie Bo8cB
~ou2d not be authorlsed to dens the p8rxdt. andsr the
fact6 related by yina.