142
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable V. EL Coar, Fags 2
You further state in your letter of September12,
.h, that %n the 11th day ot September, 1939, the Con&s-
BiOLWC8' court passed an ocdsr whereby it xas QUthor&ed to
UrplOO a lawpsr to represwt the three preoinota in Blanao
OoWItf in the above mentioned law sPit to be peld out of
uowlty mand8.” The question you ask 1~ as foll~war
"18 thu County authorized to employ counsel fn a '/
ease of this Mn4.snd pap his .res out of County ms7y:.
Cur answer to yOur queatIon is that the Com&&onsrs*
COPrt Of Blanoo County is authorized to employ oounsel ln a easa
Of-this kLn6 to represent the Comm5.esionersVCourt nnd to pay
htef~ 00t 0f 00unty fya6.
In the cam of City Natlonel Dank of Austin v. Primltlio
uounty, sa s. %. 775, it nap held t&at the Cdssioners* Court
vn8 adhorizea to hire oouhsel to represent the CommSs&ouers*
@art %n a suit ahioh was brought against the County 3udge amI
th* Oonnisslonersto enjofn alleged i&legal aotlon of the Wm.im-
~d01~0r8* t-art ~IXXVMIOYSO~; tb 00utf'aSat 0r PXWJ~MO c0wy
ft0aFort Davis to Nanga. The court held
that while t&a suit
mS 0tinal.l~ against the defetiante as individuals, it was
d@rigPQ to oontrol the performanoe oi their offioial sots, and
.awerore wa8 a matbsr.of oonpem to the oounty. In thls~oonneo-
tibnths oourt sa1d.r
While it was nominally a ault against them as indl-
viduals, lte'design and effeot maa to obstruot aad
oontrol the prr0rrrmnoa 0r their oAY'ilcia1 acts,~and
we are not disposed to hold In suoh a oaae t&t they
muat 30 nothiry5toward6 defendin+;such stilt, or must
miploy connael.at .t&Lr i)~inexpense. They had power
.,toemploy oounael,~and.~o defray the reasonable
orpenm thereof out of the county x32nd8.~
The court also held that the right to employ OouMel
us not dependent upon whether the order Or the Cok!&stiOners'
Court uhiC!iwas under attnok was valid or invalid. On thl.6point
the oourt suid:
"The validity of their acts was not afl‘eotedby the
faot tbnt they were dot8ken. or thhf there was an
adveree de&slon of the question. It baasbeon fre-
quently herd thet the poaar cannot be measured by 'auoh
a rule.W
The disposition 0f that partion Of the Count3 rOad and
bfidge fund oon&stin(S of automobile Ee&Stration fees iS 00n-
trolled by &tiole fit375a&Corthe kevisvd Civii Stat\ltes, and is
144
Eoaorabls v. B. war, Page a
a~ttel~mbiohlio~withfntb jurldiotlon #the
& UhtribWifoA of the autmobl1.orq#atratLon f&8
bmio~. to the oouaty road md bii@e fund is a hatter ot
~OM@TD to the aty. Tha suit in'thaDirtriotC6urttr a
muitlto rr8traiAtb OouAt Ju4Jp end ths oosmlssloAerr in thm
pmforran~ofthdr ofrioIal Urrtioa.Wearm thenfonoftk
opbdon that the Ommieolo~~?8*Omit has thm autborit~tohk-8
ooum8elto PeprmmAt the OawAls~iomrr'ootut In thm maltnfomd
tclryour latter. It I~wallnttledthatths ooankniaaord
ooh~tohava.thmpouertoUroaortnacb]:tonprwent theoouaty
trr.aatten that ainotly aoaoarathe @@aaty busixwm. Maam vr
8O*grt, m 'M. 888, 860 81 Wq bl8t 86&=8tOA' @Ilit 1. -@Wh6A,
880 6. W. SSO0)Ct~bmava Dads, SS6 SC We 8088 Wuan-WarpeaYublbh-
ii= a. Vc 8UwA &AAtf, 48 8. w. (86) 6%
ml80 the ~&ullJ io agab tin Qaraiod.oAmr**
omxro,
lWEd%4'to tb tie@ltiOABiAtb ~tiOA,td#inoOtb
&pow of tha ault ,&a to rt an&do or mvlao am opde~ of the
~8dOAOd mt @tOtilt&iA. it8 CbfiOial OaPflatty, NO d0 AOt
klievo that the raot that oaly thrme nmmbmra dr the ctxmdeaioaer~~
Court are aado doimldaat8wauld affaotthe right of tlNOoaf&e-
8iolmr8'GourttoeaQlg8poeial oowmoltoreprooenttbeC~*
aloaord court.~the eontraotofaaplo~nt howevervmlbhave to
be a ooatnot to rcrp~AOAt tho 0nmniaelon4srs* court arrl not a
oontraotto represent the three preoinota whose oomieeionerr 82yt
namd as deetendants; othervdee,,rrsdo not believe that thrrrewould
bm any lawful autborlty to,oxpenfl
Funty funds iOr the hiring Of
Thorattorney.
Very truly your0
AT&WI& aEfmzAL OF T'lexAs