OF EXAS 

GROVER SELLRRS ~USTXN 11. TEXAS 

Hon. Charles R. Martin 

county Auditor 

Opinion NO. 0-6551 

Re,: Payment of traveling expenses 

Harrison. County of the Commissioners’ Court of 

Marshall, Texas Harrison County, under the provisions 

of Houss Bill Noi 84, 49th Legislature and under the provisions of the 

Harrison County Special Road Law’ 

Dear sir; (1931). 

We are in receipt of your letter of recent date requesing the opinion of this department on the above stated matter. 

We quote from your letter as followsr 

“The last Legislature passed an Act, same being 

H.B. No. 84, amending Article 2350, Title 44, R.C.S., 

and other amendments, whereby they rece,ive raises in 

pay according to assessed valuations. 

“Under Section la, the Commissioners~ Court in 

each county is hereby authorized to pay the actual 

traveling expenses incurred while traveling outside 

of the County on official county business never to 

exceed Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) in any one 

year for each said official. 

“In Harrison County we have a special road law, 

enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, ‘a 

great number of years back! and section 10 of said 

law provides as follows: Each County Commissioner 

and the County Judge of said court when traveling on 

county business relating to the roads or highways of 

said county shall be allowed the sum of Seven (7~) 

cents per mile as traveling expenses to be paid out 

of the Road and Bridge Fund on sworn statement at the 

end of each month; provided that the county shall not 

pay to the County Judge or any county commissioner 

in excess of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars as traveling ex- 

.penses for any one month.’ 

“The Harrison County Road Law repeals Chapter’42, 

Acts of the First Called Session of the 27th Legislature (the same being known as the Davidson Road Law. 

“Question, under H.B. 84, would it be legal for 

the County to pay the actual traveling expenses 
Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 2 (O-6551) 

incurred while traveling outside of the County on 

official county business, in addftfon to the traveling expense allowed under OUP Speofal Road law, 

quoted above, either on business connected with the 

Road and Bridge Fund, or General Fund, and if so, 

would the County Judge be entitled to the traveling 

expenses also as set out under H.B. 841 

“Also, where the Commissioners Court of a county 

should decide to send one of its members out of the 

county with reference to the leasing etc., of lands 

owned by the Permanent School Fund, which lease money 

is paid to the Available School Fund, would it be legal to pay this expense out of the Available School 

Fund or should the same be paf.a out of the General 

Fund3 H.B. 84 does not say from what fond this expense should be paid.” 

House Bill No. 812, Chapter 156, Special Laws, Regular 

Session, 42nd Legislature, 1931, Zn part provides: 

“Sec. 10. Each County Commissioner and the County 

Judge of said county (Harrison County) when traveling 

on county business relating to the roads or highways 

of said county shall be allowed the sum of Seven (7$) 

cents per mile as traveling expenses to be paid out of 

the Road and Bridge Fund on sworn statement at the end 

of each month; provfdea that the county shall not pay 

to the County Judge or any County Commissioner in excess of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars as traveling expenses 

for any one month.‘” (parenthesis ours) 

House Bill No. 84, 49th Legislature? in part provides: 

“Section la. The Commissioners9 Court in each 

county is hereby authorized to pay the actual traveling expenses incurred while traveling outside of the 

county on official county business never to exceed 

Three Hundred Dollars ($300) in apy one year for each 

said official. 

“Sec. 4. That all general laws 

laws in conflict with the foregoing 1 

or parts of general 

ct, be, and the same 

are hereby expressly repealed.” 

House Bill 84 which amends Article 2350, Vernon’s AMOtated Civil Statutes, is a general law relating to the salaries of 

county commissioners and the traveling expenses of the commissioners’ court. House Bill No. 812, Special Laws of Texas, Regular 

Session, 1931, Chapter 156, is a speoial law applicable to Harrison 
Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 3 (o-6551) 

County; Section 10 of said Act provides for the payment of traveling expenses of the county judge and the county commissioners 

when such travel is in connect ion with the roads land highways of 

said county. The enactment of a general law does not, by implication, operate as a repeal of the special law, although both laws 

relate to the same subject matter. Also, the general law is applicable in all cases not embraced by the special act. (Townsend v. 

Terrell, 16 S.W. (2d) 1063; Ellis v. Batts, 26 Texas 703). We 

note, also, that House Bill No. 84, supra, by the terms of Section 

4, repeals only general laws or parts of general laws in conflict 

therewith; consequently, it would not operate as a repeal of the 

special law, insofar as the same subject matter is covered in the 

Harrison County Special Road Law. The special act is construed as 

constituting an exception to the general law. (Cole v. State, 

170 S.W. 1036) It is therefore the opinion of this department 

that the provisions of the Harrison County Special Road Law would 

control with reference to the payment of traveling expenses of the 

county commissioners and the county judge insofar as such travel 

is related to the roads or highways of said county. rt is our 

further opinion that the payment of traveling expenses, other than 

travel relating to the roads and highways of said county, should 

be governed by the provisions of House Bill 84. 

With reference to your question as to whether the county 

judge would be entitled to traveling expenses under the provisions 

of House Bill No. 84, we note that the Act refers to “the comissioners’ court” end sets the maximum amount to be paid for traveling expenses in any one year for “each said official.” In view of 

the fact that the county judge and the several commissioners constitute “the commission es’ court” (Art. 2342, V.A.C.S.), it is our 

opinion that the county judge would be entitled to actual traveling 

expenses under the provisions of Section la of House Bill 84, subject to the limitation that the county judge’s traveling ~expenses 

in connection with the county roads and highways of Harrison County 

should be governed by the provisions of the Harrison County Special 

Road Law. 

I 

With reference to your inquiry as to the proper fund with 

which to pay the traveling expenses authorized under the provisions 

of Section la, House Bill 84, this department held in Opinion No. 

0-6604 that said expenses should be paid from the County General 

Fund. We quote from said opinion as follows: 

“In regard to your question as to which fund the 

actual traveling expenses should be paid from when incurred under authority of Section la of said Art. 2350, 

R.C.S., as amended by said H.B. No. 84, we quote from 

the Supreme Court of Texas (Bexar County v. Mann, 157 

S.W. (2a3 134) as follows: 
Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 4 (O-6551) 

II1 All county expenditures lawfully authorized 

to be made by a county must be paid out of the county’s 

general fund unless there is some law which makes 

them a charge against a special fund.’ 

“Therefore as said Section la of Art. 2350,R.C.S., 

in which authority to pay traveling expenses is given, 

does not make them a charge against any special fund, 

we conclude that such traveling expenses should be paid 

from the General Fund.” 

With reference to your question as to the proper fund 

from which to pay expenses incident to the leasing of the Harrison 

County Public School Lands, we find no constitutional or statutory 

provision that would authorize the payment of expenses of this 

character from the Available School Fund. 

Art. 2826, V.A.C.S., provides: 

“It shall be the duty of the Commissioners Court 

to provide for the protection, preservation and disposition of all lands heretofore granted, or that may 

hereafter be grant~tto7th;e;o~~~ for education or 

schools. Const., . , . 

Our courts have held that the expenses of acquisition, 

preservation and sale of school lands must be paid out of the 

County General Fund. (Brazoria County v. Paagitt (Civ.App.3 160 

S.W. 1170, (error refused); Taber vs. Dallas County, 106 S.W. 332; 

Dallas County v. Club Land and Cattle Company, 66 S.W.. 294; 

Pulliam v. Runnels Co., 

County, 57 Tex. 572). 

15 S.W. 277; and Tomlinson v. Hopkins 

In the case of Dallas County v. Club ‘Land and Cattle 

Company, supra, the Supreme Court, in justifying. the placing of 

the expenses of administering the school fund.. as a charge against 

the General Fund of the county, used the foll.ing language: 

1’. . . . As to the reason of the provision; it 

may be urged that, since the county is made a mere 

trustee, it is unreasonable to suppose that it was 

intended to charge it in its individual capacity 

with the expense of administering the trust fund? 

The answer is that while in legal contemplation, 

the county is but a trustee, and the school fund the 

beneficiary, the county has an important interest in 

the maintenance of public schools within its limits; 

and that it is not unreasonable that the framers of 

the constitution should have deemed it politic to make 
, . 

Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 5 (o-655l) 

the expense of administering a fund set apart for 

the support of public schools in the county a 

charge upon its general revenues. Since the lands 

are the gift of the state for the special benefit 

of the educational interest of the county, it is 

not a hardship to require the county administration 

to hear the expense of converting the laud into 

money. . .'I 

In view of the foregoing authorities, you are therefore 

advised that expenses in connection with the leasing of school 

lands should be paid from the County General Fund. 

We trust that the above and foregoing satisfactorily 

answers your inquiries. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GBNERAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/ J. A.~ Ellis 

J. A. Ellis, Assistant 

APPROVBD JUL 2, 1945 

/a./ Grover Sellers 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEB 

BY: BWB , CHAIRMAN 

JAE:&J:wb