OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Eonorabia 5. Z. ;qal.tere 

County Au<.ltor 

tinitb County 

Tyler, Taxns 

TM.8 will aoknov.1.s 

1999, edares64a to th kttor 

16 06 r0u.0tf6~ 

'I em 64rTf 

E4hool6. TbIa p 

the CitJ cOlrm16 

ior GhL6 84 

and aa now 

~bi6 d-ii44 

Eohool Fund6 

law to J&ad 

4tiao Tyler Publle 

polneaSaz& metis by 

a#1unwJntr whatsoeTor 

t&4 oath at Offi 

lglitl3 cou3lty. 

y or InasQena4nt 

I be peraitte& uw¶4r the 

4 mQU46t WiSdO, thi6 i6 t0 dh%64 

titution of the 8tats of Y4S46, 

11 hold or 4xorols4, et ths airpls tim4, 

orrl.as of fu6olprasfG, axaept that of 

oonty ~0m&is6ion4r~, Botery Pub110 an6 

z be 6441: the?, no person o41i sx6rciee or hold 

more than on8 cidl~0rfi44 of 4moluwnt at tbe mfme tfma ewept 

those officerrr hnreiziabors, csrtifiea 46 i6 previded buy ths ArtlCle 

tUid 66OtfOil Oited of tile COli6titUtfOCl Of %Xe6. 

In an6wor tcr your reQU4at, w4 6h4ll tlr6t 4bdr466 OUT601Tt.6 t0 that liZi Et d46i6iOn5 re@tiin& 5ffiO46 Of 4Wl.rtasnt 

wherela the court6 Lava Sf63C~664d the @~~#tfon wh4ther or not P 
Eon. B. %. k6ltor6, Pa&e 2 

person oan hO1d such OftiOe6 6t one and the Bale tfrr.4. i-4 first 

cite th4 086% of Truitt 1. Glen Bon4 SohoolDlstrlct ilo. 1, by the 

Coxsmlo4iou of irpR4af6 of Texa8, a6 tow6 in I34 f;. %. (26) 1004, 

in which it ~6 stated: 

HO64 

Eoweter, on October 33, 1933, the tru6t4oa of tho Glen 

Inaepemont ::ohool Di6trict appointoa the said Perry Ku@4 a6 

oolleotor or tax66 for eald independent eohool dlatrict, and on 

mrsmber 8, 1938, (three day8 after hi6 414otion a6 eherift and 

tax oolleotorI, he ereouted a bond which wa6 by the bomd ot 

trurtees accepted in the 6~0 of &6,&00 with J. E. Viard, J. 0. Pratt, 

and 6. 3. Demaby, a6 6uratl46, payebls to the board 0r.tm6teoa 

at the diatrlot and thelr'ruaceaaors Ln ottloo, oarrying the urrual 

oondltions with rererenod thereto, and on ths same day Ku&e took 

the oath of office to talthtully and impartially perform all the 

autiae inombant upon him a6 tax oollector, eta. 

"Perry Bugle, fn ths Domocratlo Primary held 

On .7uly 28, 1923, recelrea the notinatlou for sherift 

and tar collsctor of Soarsnell county ana wa6 thereafter. on November %, 1988, eleoted to tbat oftlee." 

Subeequ4nt thereto, 06 January 1, 192Q, Ku&o took the 

oath or ottice and made the bond raQtirad bp law, a* the bherift 

and tax oolleotor of Somervell oounty and enterod upon the duties 

of that otfioe and ha ~a6 eleotad to 6WO4ed hineelf in the idl 

eleotlon of 1930, end on OF about January 1, lQS1, toqk ths oath 

of ortlos ana entered into bond 66 rcsqtired by law, tor a aeeoad 

tenn a6 6h%riff and tax oollaotor ot 306msv4l~ Oourity. 

The Glen Rose Sohool Diatrlot wa6 an ind4pendent sohool 

distriot acd nc, order we6 %vbr entered by a rcajorlty of the 

board ot trueteos of the di6tFiOt ae 16 provided by mtiole 8793, 

i4vi64a Civil Ctatutes of *rexaa, 1926, to have the taxes of ths 01411 

Ron4 Independent School Dfetrict asseraed and oolleotea by the county 

a66s6qor and colleotor, and after the 6aid Mug10 had taken the ofti 

of 8hsrlrt and tax colleator of Yomarvall county ha continued to ooll%ct ths tare6 for the Glen fioae Indepsndent Sahool Diatrlot and 

oontlnued tc act a6 both 6uOb tax oolleotor for the Inaependont 

::~ohool District end ror So~2ervell oounty. 

Thereafter Bugle d%fauLt%tl on hi6 bona 86 tax oolleotor 

tor tbo sahool district and suit w%6 brought thereon. This C&60 

Is recorded in 50 2. \1. (2d) 373 where, the Court of Civil Appaalr, 

pass~od upon the mstter. h Writ of Error was granted, aud in pa68iag 

UpOn ttii.6 C864, the Co6sniesion ot A&~peala had thhs to say: 
Sian, B. 2. Walters, Page 9 

'Tiera, we have two separate taxing bodies with 

two separate aseeaslng offloers ahd'tuo aeparete tax 

oclleotore, their duties,,seperate and dlstinot. 

0. I348 killer v. Vance 

"The Court of Civil Appeal8 oorreotly held that the 

tax ooileotor of this pertlou’lar dietrict and the tar 

oolleotor of the county are tharsfore two eeparete 

and distltiet orrlcee, each of exoluuent. (Odem v. Slntoa 

Indepentient School Di8triot (Tax. Corn.. App.) 234 S. W. 

1090; Jenkins V. Zlutry (Tex. CIT. App.) 836 9. yi. 678). 

and when Kugle qualified es oouuty tax oolleotor, he 

automtloally rorreltsd his right to the orfioe or aollootor ror the sahpol dlstrlct, beoauee %he holding or 

both said orriO atthe 8eme~tleie by the 8-e persons 

is within the prohibition Of extiole 16, Sec. 40, of our 

State Con8tItutIon..W 

In the case or odesi P. Sinton Independent tiohool Di8trIot 

by thec;zy Gommi88Ioa or Appeal8 a8 r0U.M in 234 S. ?i. 1090 to 

1092, . i. Cellqm, City wzeo88or~6nd Collector Or the City of 

Siuton, we8,8elect,ed by the Sohool Board to es8et38 and oolleot taxes 

fo;o$;t80hool dletrlct. be undertook to ae6688 the taxes in the 

Prooeediug8 were begun by oorteln taxpayers ot the 

dl8tr;Ot*tO enjoin the oollectfon 0r the aohool tax. Cellum never 

took the oeth or Grave bond a8 distriat ae888sor and oolleotor, being 

doubtrul whether he could hold both euoh oftiwa, and th6 Attorney 

General Ic the mantime having ruled he could not hold both OffICC8 

at the same time, end judge Taylor or the Gonm1i88Ion of hppealr in 

that ca8e said: 

"It I8 char that Vellum oould not held hie olfioe 

as city 688658or and OOlleetOr, and et tte 8e23e .tlne 

act ae de facto aeaee8or aod oolleotor of the 8ohool 

district. The.ConstItution prohlblte the holdirig end 

exercise at two such OffICe8. ,SeotIon 40, art. 10, 

Constltutlon of Yex5B. Eie could not hold or exeroiee 

both otrlcee In oI%h5r a de jure or de facto oepeoity." 

Tii8 mittcr Is sumarized in Tex. Jurlsprudcnae, Vol. 34, 

p. 354, 60 rOiiOC8: 

"having eLected to eoaept and qualify tar the seoond 

0fri0f3, ipec; ractc, anC a8 a .uatter cf law, he veoates the 

first orrice, 'l'bia Ia true, where both orrices 5re pleoes 

or emolumnt, regerdlees of.whethsr they are Inooupatlble, 
Eon. B. T. Galtars, Pqe 4 

and Ir they are Inoompatlble there 18 a vacation or the 

rirst 0rriab regaxdle8s of whether both are 0rii808 of 

emolument within the omening or the Constitution. In mch 

oirouuetenoes the oon8titutIonal 

1 

XWI8iOu that all orfleer 

sheil oontluue to perrorni the dut e8 of their oYIoes 

until a maaeesor has been qualified does not apply.* 

The view herainaboos exprsssed Is supp0rted by the - -- 

'ComxIsslon or Appeals in the eeee or Thomas et .a1 t.,,Absmat&y county 

Line Independent School Dletrlct a8 found In 200 3. 6. lS2. in this 

oa.te one Lindsey and one Smith were deated end qualifiedas sohuol 

trustees In,Aprll. 1924; thsroai'ter, about Ci8ptemb8r S, 1924, they 

nere slootsd and quallried a8 aldermen of the town. 

in passing upon the aatter'as to whether or not theae~3mo 

sm were sohool trustees, the oourt had this-to say: 

“In oar opinion the orri.&e of eohool trustee and 

aldencan are inoonpatlble$ for under our system there 

are In the city oounoll or board of alderzen various directory or supeniso~ powers exertable In rerrpeot to 

Soh001 propony looated rithin the olty or term and in 

respect to the duties of sohool trustee performable 

within Its lIx&ts-e.g., there night well arias a oontllot of disoretion or duty -&XJ respeot to health, quarantine, 

sanitary, and fire prersntion regulations. See ertloler 

lOlS, 1067, 1071. 2.8. 1945. Ii the same perclon oould 

be a school tru8tek and a member or the city oounoll 

or hoed or aldernan at the sane tixie~, sohool policIe8, 

in pazlo important r88pBot0, *ould be subject to direotisn 

ot the council or aldermen In8tOad Gr to th8t ot the 

trueteee. 

"The result 0r this Inoompatlbility i8 that Smith 

end Lindsey vacated the offices of 8ChOOl trustee8 when 

they quellPied a8 aldenxen. state f, 3riakerhorr, 

17 2. i.. 109. . l * 

And ln this re8peot the oourt further aaid: 

"31 view of what ha8 been said, the question 

whether the o,Plit?e of sahool tlWSt80 or that Or elderzan is an orrioe or *esmlumant* within the terma‘-ir+- 

sedtlon 40, art. 18, of the Constitution, I8 iximaterial, 

end In rs8peot to that pue8tion we do not 8 

or Imply a a~nol~el~n.~ .(UndbreoorIng ourp 
Bon. 6. T. salters, Page 5 

We come now to the question of aontpatibi~ity of the offIces 

in ueotion. 

$ 

It is shown by your letter that the Boar4 of tducatlon 

of yler Yubllo Sohools la fll.lell by appointment made by the elty 

oommissloners and there aro no amoiumnts uhaterer.for thle senIoe. 

ha, 0r COUTBO, ad a scatter of iaw, you have been appolntod by other 

proper authorltlos as oounty auditor of taith County. 

Thm it can be eoen that you have been appointed to the 

two offices in question by two dlfrerent ad dletlnat bodlee 

and the offlce of a momber of the board OS eohool trueteee or the 

Tylsr Publlo Sohoois ena that of Oounty Auditor of the County ln 

whSoh ths City of Tyler is losate would ao rar am we oan fin4 

have no conneotlon on& wlth the other, 

Elth reference to the oompatlblllty of the otfloes In 

question,.ure oall your attention to the oarre or State ex rel 

Brennan vs. liartlu, 513. R. (86) Bl.6. An4 in t&la oaee by the Court 

ot Clrll Appeals at &SI Antonio from whloh no tilt 0r error was 

granted, 'we quote: 

*on A6prli 2, 1952, appeiioe, J. C. kartln, wa8 

Quiy oleoted, an6 subrequently quallrled,~ ae one of the 

trustees of the tire&o Independent sob001 416trlot, 

whioh 1s under the *exalus1ve oontrol' of the olty of 

Laredo, as provided by statute. Artlols 5758, et seq., 

H.E. 1925. 

*Thcreai'ter, on April 19, lQoBE, appellee alao 

'qualified, by taking tho oath of off100 and pirIng 

bond, as the tax easesaor of the City ot Larobo,@ whether 

by reaeon ot appointment or eleotlon. In not ahoun In the 

rsO0ra. 

"In short, appellee is oooupylng anb parforalng 

the olflolai duties of two distinat ofrlcee, to wit, 

truetee oi the Laredo lndepenaent sohool 4lstrIot, an4 

tax assessor of the city of hredo. 

"The state cf '&?xas, through it8 diEtriOt attornsy, 

oh the relation of Eal I.. !3rsnnan, brought this informatlon in the nature of a quo warrant0 to oust appsiioe 

from the GffiOt3 Of OOhoOl trU8tSW6, UpOn the O~tCidifOn 

that the two offlc~s are llnoompatlbl.e~ and my not-be 

ooouplad by the same person oontempciraneousiy, ah4 that 

by quallfylng as aity tax eseeesor appnllee thereby 

vacated the office of sohool trustee, Into whloh he had 

been prs~iouslp inductab. 

"The gshmsl demrrcr wae eustalned to the lpf@Eatlon 

f:lsd In the court below, an8 the grooeed:ng was.dlsmlrssd 
L 

.-.t32 

aiN 

Pen. B. T. Waltera, Page 6 

&on the refu6al of the relator to 6mend. The appeal 

thanforo must turn upon the que6tion of the 6urrielenoy 

ot the lnlorsetlon as agalnrt the genenl desurrdr.0 

Xnd paeelng upon the pwrtlon above eat out, the 6ourt 

said in quoting section 40 of Artlole 15 of the Conatltutlon of 

Texas : 

"The constitutional provl6lon doee not p$r 66 6nd 66 

6 6i6tter of law, prohibit a person ircln hol&g the offloe 

of school trueteo while also holdl~ -other pub110 

office, for the simple reason th6t that provl8lan appllea, 

arbitrarily, only to *oivll otil6e6 of. emolumenf,? wher668 

tho 0rriOO 0r trust06 of the brad0 lndepandont rohool 

dlstrlot is not one of *amolumant,~ rlnaa the holder8 

thereof *ahall 6arva nithout. oompan6etlon,* Art1016 2775 

R.S. 1925;'l Bouvl0r*6 law Diet. (5d Zd.) 19558 Blaak.6 

S21* 8 Word6 and Plaa6e6 Firat %rler 

"h"~~~~~:*~&!. &tin O*Ball &'Boris [Tex. Clv. Appp:) 

'2557; 

I.09 8. Y!. ,778. 

War may the courts aa6uma that ha a6 a .publla otflolal 

will violate hi6 oath of offloe snd the l6w in 6lnlster 

pur6ult 0r en unlawrul purpose. -6 pre6umptlon is rather 

to the contrary. 

The duties of the two offloe dre who& unrelated, 

are in ao m6nnar lnoonal6tant, are natsr in ooniliot. 

~althor officer la aooountable to the.other,'nor under 

his domlnlon. Neither 1s subordinate to the other, nor 

ha6 any power or right to interfere rith the othar.3.n the 

performanoa Of any duty. Th8 crflaee as6 tharafore not 

lnaonaistant Or lnoomp6tlble, and, one of them not being 

6 *olril orrlca of emoluant,* both say ba.oooupled end 

the dutlas thereof lawfully perfozmod by the mm6 palron. 

22 li.C.L. p. 4l.2 et 6eqt 48 C. J. pp. 941 et 86qi 8 8 46 

et aoq; Case IiotS L.&A. 1@7A,, fix68 Gatd V. TOWMwd, 

77 Tax. 464, 14 Y. 6~. 565; Figures V. 6tata (Tax. Clr. App.) 

99 b. 6. 412. 

irnd irr vl0w Gf a atatem0nt suds herelntibove by us end 

of the oa6ea oited an4 di6au66ad, we are oi the opinion that 

a member oi' the board Gf eohool tru6taea a6 appointed b7 the 

olty ~ovaruSng board uf the City of .?!yl0r would hat0 no bonneatlon 

with or aontrol ov0r the office of county audltor~of Eimith County 

an4 %loa veraa with r0feranoe to the county auditor of Bmlth 

county with regard to the, board 0s Muoatlon 0s phe City 0r Tyler: 
Eon. 6. T. mltera, page 7 

i&d ir. turtter visa of t&s fact ‘that no emolument 

rhatsoaver Sor thr? service as a member,of tna board of education 

of the Tyler pubiia 8chools Will be pid, ?..e liuld that the offices, 

ara net incompatible axI thot rkile senin@ cs co'mty auditor of 

Smith County ona ~65 at the 88s~ time serve, hs a mmber of tha 

Board of Lduoatioti of' tte City cf Tyler rlthc~i;t coxpaneation. 

Yours very truly 

COMMITTEE 

APl!ROVc R: ~ 

ATTOFUJEY G%Xi3AL 03 TmS