Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. OFFlCEOF+HEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS , AUSTIN lrobruury 24!, 1938 crtslnlnr, to ti-io county troeeurer, 12-3 above queotioa sub3ltted, tke e-owes whiah aro your ~mstion: TTay a county trewmrer in a oouuty hav- ing a po~ulaticn of 10,4GQ and with a &iluetian of less time ~G,OOO,OOO.OOretoln &ins fwiker oomis.;ione fcr his o:m ocnponsation in exooss of $2,00i).OO annually?R . . Hon. James X. Strawn, February 24, 1939, Page 2 Tho office of county treasurer ia provided ior by tha hl8t~tUt:On, Article 16, Aotion 44, which reeds 88 follows: ‘@The LeSioleture shall presoribe the duties and provide for the election by the qualified rote;:8 cf oath oouuty in this Stete, of a county treasurer and a oounty surveyor, who shall hnvs en office et the oounty seut, and holE tboir offloc ror tu;o -yeurs, and until thcIr’sticocssors are quoli- ficd; end shall have such compensation as may be provided by law.” The follow!ng statutes control end provido for the maxiuer, rate end maximumupon which the fees or oom- missions allossd to the county treasurer are based: .."Art. 3941. The county traasurcr shall receire coxnissiofi5 on the moneys reoeivcd and. peid out by him, mid oom.da.sions to be tired by C?rder of the oorrcnissioners oonrt as tOllOiVS: %cr reoeivlng nll moneys, other than school funds, for the oonnty, not ex- CW&ir.,; tt.0 end ens-hall’ por cent, and not OXCeedin~ two end ems-hsZf per cant for peyinl;. out the seme; prodGod,, that ha shall receive no commls.sion r(ir receiving money trcm his prodecossor nor ror paying ovsr money to tie suooeesor in offloe. “Art. 3942. The treasurers of the sevsral counties shsll be treasurers or the avoilabls puklia troo sahool fund and also of’ tile periuanont county school fund for their rskpectivo counties. The treasurers of the soveral counties shall be nllo:*:sd for rsceivin;s end disbursing ths school funds one-half of one per cent for rcoeiv- iQg, and one-half Of on0 PSr oent for diS- burslng, said co~izi33lrnt to be paid out -Y of the evollablo so5001 fund CP tho county;. provided, no cor%%isnions ahnll be paid for rccel.vlnS the bnlsnos trsnsmittod to him by his predoceasar, or for turning over the balance in his hsnds to his suoosssor; and provided, that ho shall rooeivo no ooze- missions on money transferrod.” . Eon. James VT: StraaP,.February 24, 1839, Page 3 AHAke 3943, RS amended, reads in part as r0110e3: bThe’COmrd6SiOnS allked ‘to any county trsaturcr shall not exceed $2,000.00 annually; .... At the out-set, we are constreined to aonaur w2th tt;e ?ropx?itions OS laid down 3.n your brlaf. Under the.faats aitsd a?pliqoble to your aounty such maximum awqensation, IncludinS also the disburaine end receiv- inc of tho sahool funds; would be confi’ned to the limits oxpressod in tha above quotwi portion of Article 3943, Revised Civil Stat*dos, 1925, as amended. This ReRart- ment ha3 cozsist?ntly held that tha aounty treesurer is not such an officer es dssIgneted OX would some nit!+ in the prcvlsIons of ‘.he ~arinun Sr;o bill 8s orizlnally enacted by the Acts of 1930, 41at Xegisluturc, 4th Celled Session, pago 30, ohugtor 22 and a?endr,anQ ~5 ssme inaluded the provisions of &tialle 32-53 end 3891, Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, es omendad. In iixini: the amount OS OOqXnSetiGu which a county treasurer ibcll rcaeive, es sp~lfashle to your county,’ the cozzaissioner, ** court ie confS.!?ed to the provisions of the above artlclaset forth. ‘Such courts may reduce the rote or peracntsge as provided in krti- , ale 3341 or reduce the nexisus coml~sion~ ellowed under t:lc statutory rnte cr.?cch as fixed by the oourt, udder no csse, herever, my tt exceed the, %~rimm of $2,000.00 nnnuelly. CJinller que6tiOns, as, no doubt, the sltuatlon in your county nlll raise, have been passed tn by numerous euthorltles end we resgecttully call your attenticn to tile fcllonlnq cases: Crser vs. Hunt County [Corn. of App.) 249 . SW 63%. Csvcnport vs. Zastland, 94 ‘tax. 277, 60 SW 244. Stophens vs. Kills,County, 113 LX (2nd) 944. Shaw vs. Smith County, 29..5X (2nd) 1000. Ihroa%morton County vs. Thompson (Sup. Ct;) 115 ST! (2nd) 1102. i v . . . . Eon. iTme F. Strawn, February 24, 1939, Pa&e 4 It is, therefore, be o?lnion of tMs Dooart- metentthat t!x county trocsur,er in R county vith.- a popu- lation of 10,469, according/t% precadinz ‘,r. 3. oensus, and rs1th.e yellration of lcsz tkm ~,5,000,000.00, wder krtiolcs 3941, 3942 acd 3943, as amnded, Revised Civil Etatutus, 1925, oaxs ocly be allowed and may not retain 88 his coxll5oi.on or fmlery ally SIxa In cJxocsR OS Q2,030.00 annually. Very truly yours . ’ . . ,