.-.
607
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Hon. Bert Ford, rdmlnlstxetox
Texas LlqUDr (lontrolBoard
Austin, Texss
Dear girt
power
rule and regulation
he pl?Qvisionsor the
hfrd, whether or not
if promulgated by the
repugnant to the antl-
e Li~usr Oontrol Aot, eraoae;
other thin@,
6h1 (d), that the Lfquox Oontr@l Board
ius ail et&m ~QWWE, duties, and
erred by thla Aat, and all powers
incIdental, amvenients or wm!~aeary to onable
it to admlnietsr or ,aarxyout any of the provi-
clone of this Act ama to publish all neoeassry
rulea,and reg;ulntlona."
17 of the Afft pmvidim
Seseotlon that it ahall be Maw-
rul for any persaa rho wina or has an intervat
in the busi-
ntms of a d~stiller,~bzewer, rsatiiler, who&@llralar,
w%nOrg,
Ron. Bert Ford, Fage #2.
or dine bottler, or any agent, servant, or eatployee"to furnish,
61~s. or lend any money, EarviOe, or other things of value, or
to extend unusual aredlt terms to any retailer, or to any
person, for the use, benefit, or relief of auah retailer, or
to guarantee the frilfillmentof any flnanoial obligation of
any retailer."
Section 24 of Artlals 2 of the Liquor Control Aot provides~
*The exteaeton of oradlt for longer period or
tine than Is generally extended to regular ouetomers
Of a nurntu'aoturer
or distributor ooveting the purohslse
of brewery produots from auoh aaanufaotuxeror dla-
tributor &all ba deemed unusual oredit tonas.*
TAO hat gu0wi0n rrorpth0 A0t is the odly ad'inition
of the tern wunusual oredlt tonne" whioh me hove found In
the Aot. Shile it is in Article 2, we think It does evidenoe
the leglelatlve intent end deities what is meantby the same
phraee a8 used in ArtlOle 1.
we are or the opinion that the Power &iven the Board to
prevent the granting of unusual oredit is not the same am the
nmer to require oesh to.ba paid,
In CamerOle Standard Insuranoe Company vs. Board of
Insuranoe Cocaalseioners,S4 S. Pq. (Ed) S4S, the oourC said:
*The Board oan exerolse only the authority
oanterred upon It by law in clear and unmistakable
tenus, and nil1 not be deezmd to be given by lo+
plioatloa, nor aan it be extended by iaferenoe,
but mu-t be strlotly cronetrued."
In Mo;oDonald
vs. Amrioan Fruit CSoWera, Inc., 126 S. X.
(2d) S3, (whloh ie the Court of Civil Appeals opinion) and
127 6.~. (2d) 291 (which 1~ the opinion of the Supreme Court,
dismisslag the application for writ of error),a very ei!a%lar
question was oonsldored, end it was there deoided by the
Court tSat the power had not been granted by the Legislature.
Under that authority we are of the opinion that the power
to promlgate the proposed rule and regulation has not boeu
granted by the Legislature.
VJCJ It unneoeasary to answer the other question,
dsr)sr
psrtiaularly, since the Supreme Court, in pa&e%% on the
Eon. Bert Ford, Page #S.
appllaatfon in the EfaDoneldcase, dealined to state whether
.. power. -
the Legislature night delegate tne In any event,
that question m8y be answered ii aAd WheA the Legislature
grants the power.
YOAr8 very truly
ATTORNEY GTTTERALOF TEXAS
BY
’ A . 8. R0lli~8
-.4SRxpbp