Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN County Traaeurar to oifiaor for allegad asfars of certain P you are quits Lengthy, and,for opinion wo take the liberty to wuinariz8 rlor to 1931 the v0te.m of.Sha&fsl- horieed a oouuty wide bsnd ieeue. of c~ about the ma8 tba the voter8 0r Road DistiriotNo.:.?oi.sald oounty authorlmd a baad issue of &3OO,OOQ.-Thla iaaneyVW rot& ior tha pur- pose of building rosds, apparentlyunder the provi- sions ai Artiole 3, Sec. 52 of the Constitutionof Texas. It appear8 agreed that a?,terthe roads wars oompleted,thers~were several thousand dollars bal- anoa In aaoh oi suoh bond iunda. Part o? this mons~ was by order o? the oourt, on July 25, 1935, trdasfer- red from ShaaokelfordCounty Bond Fund to tha General Fund of the county and part from Road District Ro. 2 Fund to thr:Road and Bridge Pund. An amount equal to Hon. Thomas L. Bfantoa, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Pa@ 2 .., :' . tha latter funds was on Augmt 7, 1957, ordered transrarradto'th&..Cansral PuI1?'fiaimthe $Qad.end Bridge FuudIL 4t-l-, ti#.af saahof those:trena- fen,~.tlia~naraf..I'u+~r~r,.ererdrawn. . Thera.reenn,mme 4lte on tha .faatabsfwem your stat&nta.,* yooor..l~it~r;Md,t~~,teottals 0r ~~farbrs ot . the Commisaitjaar8t’ Ceiiii$~~quo~.bj~pibuas to :rhetherthe bonds and laterest, and obll&ions Sor whloh the bonds were ori& nzlly issued had been fully paid off .aad eatlafied atthe tiw of said transfers. we are no+ln posi- the puqoae of this . , I.. 1 _ -.- ! -(lj 'gas'tho;tisdsieE‘ of July 2g,.iQSa,'&& &h&k- _: elrord Coanty B~uX~.~~ to..the.*oe~r,rtl Fund* a legsl trapeber~~' .: . .. ; _ . "'(3).Z's8the.~&&a;bi Aqzust 7, 19&:&a 'Road and Bridge aund* to'.* *GeneraJ Fund' a legal.tramfer? V'.._ . "(4)' If. abbd’tr&fk8 .+.. heli i.U.egel, would, 'th~,CbuntyTraaaorgi~.ha~i.~thority to ttisfer;~wlthout 'edorder of..the'G~js$.otim!, C&t, an:a#l&.e)-etiaal to l that hbretoibrs transfirridby the ordgr:Oz.the oourt rrom *Road Dlstriof..I?b;.8XII&*.to the 'Geimral Fund' from saW?Gbneral hind“ to 'Slnkibp IkId'No.2; Road Distrlot Wo.2") ot the Commissionoia~.Court'hsio the autheritf.tetreia- I? iar.irom the *GeneralRud! to 'Sluk3ng Pupd @6.Sc.~ amout equsl to.thr~amount'~eratoion transfarrsdby the order of the Coart rrom tha lShaokeltordCoanty Bond Fund' to the 'CeaeralW$!?.. .~ "(6) Is there &y ha!i.&al-llebiliy for-t&m trans- fers: (a) eonthe part of'the'count.Judge, (b) on the part of the Cougty Cqnmissipner~.qnd:(cr on,ths part QS ,th@ County Treasuhir? " ., Hon. &onms*L. Blanton, Jr., Feb. 4, 193e, Page 3 : ;,. "(7) Ia IS thue..in thue..Fn yaur~oplnlon,01~11 liability for these ..:J transfers: (a) on Jud e, (b) on on the part of the County Judge. the the part ~of ~of-ths ths County County~Commlsalone.rs, Commlsalone,rs,and ahd (o (oJ k on the c part .orthe County~Troesurer? ,*-. ,:- : .. I. ~. ,."(8)'In the evsnt.tqe Oolamissioaars* Oour~~does not pass ti ordeP transferilngthd .,?uads,baok to.ths pmpcir funda, ~. what;ef$ionwould.you advise trlisorriot to taka?" . Wlt&rsferimoe to the first three questions we hold all transrsre of 'suchfunds tu have b&m an Illegal dive&Ion thereor. Wecarefully studied the opinion heretofore rendered on Felhsry 7, 1938, by Jamee M..Wo~; then Assistant XttOrney General to Eon; -Si C. Coffec,;~and ~agrse'thireirlth. Other authoritiesthan the ~oaae'ot~Carrol1T; ?iil?liqsi,%!Ob S.Ua 5C4, olted-by Hr. Neff, whlaH ~6 think in line thsrewlth: If Ter. Jur. 609, Sea. 78; I Robblns vs..LQnestone County, 260 SW. 915, p. 919; Comnl3alonerP~ Court v. Burk, 262 S.Wi 94 '(CIT.App., writ rsZused);~Sandero Y. Looney, 225.S.W. 28O;~%illaso'vlOomnle3lonera~Courtof Madi- . son County, 281 S;Wi‘~.503 -(Qlv.App. reversed on other grounds), From these iuthorities'weoolicltidr the oorreot statementof the law tb be that(constltut$oii~l l'udd~smeiy-notbe tiansferredfrom one !'undto enother; may,not be diverted; and Commlsslonerel Courts have no power expend for one'purposetax modey raised ostensibly ror In thls oonneotlon,w point out that the.oplnlonof July 8 1935, written by Aasls~tant Attorney General Vlotor'W. Bouliln tio~Hodorable 9. C. Ooffee, 8oema to overrule the opinion 0: former Assistant Attorney.GensralDavis, dated 2daroh.lS;1935.~ ,Weti@!ttlon thego opinions beeaueo'they are set out In--y&rbrlejfand-]sbemto~hs?r been the+iiis.'otthe Coml3a~oner3~'order9~al3a~~3~t~im~ In your btilef. Uopfes'of all three-op$nlonsarb'a@pefitted~hetisto. We alti append a copy or an bpl~loh:~tten~b¶aro~ 17;~.1937,by Asalatant Attorney General Vlotor VI.Boqldlq;to,Bo~orable.S, ‘.. C. ,S"ith,~ Countq Attorney, Meridian, Texas. '. '. ..:'., I Answering your f+rb& qudbtlon'%'%ve oire?ully,not ed the pmvlalona of Title 36, R.C.S;;,rslatlngto,tee County Treasurer. Artlole 1709 dire&s the Treasurer to 'pay~aniapply. 1 'lEOd8~3"es requlred'byliri"but.further "in suoh m&nieraa %hs- L oommlssloners~court of his7,county .'y;" ;.,,. may,~, ..I rewire ard dlreetm, .., ~;. Artlole 1713 %a'# iollawet'.qae County~Trsasurer * shall not pay any money'6utor ~the county treehry emiept In pur- auanoe.or a aertlflcatd~~or warrant from 80s~ of~loer aathorized by law ta issue the sam(,;and if suoh treasurer shall have any doubt a,--*-of_-the legality oriproprlety ~~....~._ . . . . of'any a order, deoree, _- oertl- Hon. Thomas& Elanton, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Pnge 4 , "._' :._ 7 : ..I the same. but shall make report thereof to the aommlssloners~ Court for their cona,Ideratlonand direotlon." ._. - -:; ?J. _:. 'in JZT.5. The County Treasurer la a oonstltutlonalofficer, and the Legislaturehae.+he $ouierto prescribe his dutlas. (Const. , Art. 16, Seo, ~444);.. G:e.i;ttiRo authorityYe *raaaUer of funds by. the'ttia+er'on-Me Wu:lMlinstl~n, but the statutes qbbove quQt@ ?a.pn,~~~cZ?a,~ff-~~diosts~ri:d~ty.~~.tbbpmm$eea. !&are- ~~;:~~e'hol&tke~anMM& ~t%ens Xo%.'4'?8@ e:e bo.In thu'negatlve. ~estg~-~~;~:.~h~.~i:an~~rsa'thsm is.ao erlxlnal lle~ll$~ cnithe pa& oi~eEthor~~t,theorilalrsmaattoned. No officer, any'more than a private Individual,may be punished for any aof or omIialon es a penal offense, unles? the aame Is ex- pressly defined ilnd%SieY#tuialt$ afflxed.by the wrlttmn law. 9ee P. C. (1925y~.Pxt.3; Stota Ti -abury, 37 Tex, ,159. In the Xtngsbury case iihew'w6e.n~‘8tatutu making.tha:aat.ofthe County Court In unlawful19 appmrSng an .aaoouutapainstcthsooun%g a penal orrense. See‘34~Ter; 'Jur:'479. See also opintorbonrpotlon for rehearing in oase"ef..&op8r:v.State, 279 9. W. 449. The oorreat iGs& to:your questi& Ho. fl h& @en mnoh conokn. 'F&m a'~d~ti,~‘axealnation oi.your sntira.brlef, however, snd the wo&!Uati fast situation of t&e-matter.Mfore us, ws,havs conoluded-ther+eheuldbe no-olvl.LUabilitp of qny of tha offlaers mentioned by You. iYeare of opinion the odunty jud@ amX.~ommlasIonera, In passing the orders mentioneda$ove, and set out fully In your Inquiry,were aotlng In a tldla$al.oapaoi%y oKu%‘lWUt In a quasi-judicialoapaolty. 3i 80, the respootlvu member8 of the oourt ace not reaponslblefor olvll bamap?ta. In thlw:oonnectlon, your attention Is called to the.oaae ot.Coma?@e.:Co~ty.v,.Burks, 166 3. ';:. 470 (CIv. App. writ r&fused). @ that ease tEfCoz- mlsaloners court sold oertaln aohool lti%&s*m vest!ng the proceeds of tb? male In seau~ltlesmxU&ed by the Constltutlon,from the to tlme,dlvertedportions thereof and appropriatedthe snme to the general purpoees of the oounty. The court, ln a well written opinion, held the .offloersacted In pood faith In a judlclal or quasi-judicialaapaolty, and were therefore not personally: liable. The oounty, aa such, was held ..- ._ : Hon. Themes L. Blenton, Jr., Feb. 4, 1939, Page 6 :. '-:; liable to the school fund and judgment entered accordingly. Lee in addition to the Commahe County Case, eupra,-22 R. C. I. p. 478, Seo. 152; p. 484, Sec. 162; 46 C. J. 1042; 34 Tex. Jur. p. 466, et seq.; Callaway V. Sheppard, 89 S. :7.(2) 417 (Clv. APP. writ dismissed);MoDonald t. Farmer, 56 S. 'a.555 (Clv. App.); Creswell Ranoh & Cattle Co. v. Roberts County, 278 S. Y. 737 (~civ.f4pp.writ rerused). Under authority of the oase of McDonald v. Famer, supra, we think your question is.apeolfioallyanswered as to the County Treasurer. The reoetitease of Hoffman Y. Davis, . 100 S. W. (2d) 94, (Corm. App.) f’ull~~disqmsei the rlehts and duties or oounty tresstiersand i8LrsspectfUllyrefe,yredto therefor. .r-.. : '! .. - w vlrtub oi'the-dutdbrltlee.oited, question'&. 7 should be answemed In the negative ae to all offiodrs there .jnqulredabout. .- ' As to your duty-in the premises, as refloated by your question-No.8, we suggest;youpefer the matter to the County Treasurer with the advfoe.that ho formally request the OomnissionerslCourt to pass an order transferring the eqds in controversyto.the prop.er8fnkln~~fundo. If tha‘Cina- missioners Court ehotild thsn refuse to do so, underthe BU- thoritp of Eoffimn v..Davls,:+~pka,there appears no doubt of. the right and dutfof the treqsqr to bring en aotion. The Court In that.oaae did not 'tiadW,upon.the question .&fwhether the County Attorney rould‘have~~.aancU5rlngrlgh$:but the pro- visIona or ~rt.339, R. 0. s;.would sesai%cibestow ib: 4 *. .~\. ...-f( ,_._ s *._ YourB.ver$ truly '. :. :: ..' .o;.I%&is Alsi*tant Bk':ET XTTO.3NZYC3XXRAL OF TEXAS