OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

Bon. K. P. Gexton County Attorney Cranga County Orange, Texta hex SlXl 

# (\ Opflllon BIO. ' Ret Md the oommb

n43d herore the 8m

Pour lettar the oplnlon of has been rwelRoll. w. P. Sexton, Page 8

S7a.60 par rsonth for the neason that authority to pay the additional mmout OSfees of orfhe was not obtained before the mm was paid.”Aftor oarrfully Oomilderlng the matter submltted by you, we are of the oplnlon that the Aeoislon in the ease or PXmSCN Justloe or the Pease, et al vs. OAZvE3~X COUNTY,151 k@%nA87, ooneludas the queetlon.

‘i.e quote as follour frcm the eourt’a oplniont

*Fromthe lsrws presented la the brlcbr, however, Itappears that the oontroversy aa it relstse to the aounty’e 

### cultoonoorns the followlnq itamxt (1) The rutaof $18.00 par mnth Aurlnq the two-year period paid by Pierson to .hls Deputy in exeeee of $60.00 per month ealarp rixsd br the ecamInnloner%~ oourt)....

“The appointment of the As R. c. a., **utp** was undax

Art. S902, whioh prov dae that1 ‘Whenf wmr an9 Orriobr..r.shall require the xenior8 of Aeputlea os assletante in the psrfolaance of hls duties, hemayapply to the oountp aomids- (lionera’ aourt of hia oounty iOr authority to appoint euoh Aeputles or aaslrtant6, setting out by sworn applloetlon the numberneeded, the position eoucht to be filed, and the amount to be paid,

.... and said court mayzaks its order authorizing the appointment of suoh As)utlsr end fir the canpenaatlon to be paid..rr*

“%ls statute was ca*-plied with at the beginning OS 1935 and the deputy authorir:ed and hoersalary fixed at 860 per month. amrove a salary raise to operate 1y vmuld. we hold. be a elear violation of our atate aonatitutlon, Art 3, para. 83 Veraon' An St Eu I oas lkB&s1co v. w.ite re1 Tex 13~: 47-P. ‘;.?A tI6!$1Turner ;. Sarnee 'Tar Clr' ArP.r 19S. W. SA325, affirmed on c&h&- &.nAs~ %I. Cola. App., 87 S. 1. 8A !532. The rulr laid down in Canmvn County t. Fox, Tex. Corn.APR., Al S. Y. Ed483, la not applioeble here. There the tax oollaator ploped and without preview authority, ampa Aralarfee to deputies, the items i being roportod In hla aooount, whioh wee audited. -

Eon. it. Pi Sexton, Page S

and appmved by the oammiesicnsra’ o ’urt. It was held that it was net essential to obtain approval in advanoe of enployment a? de~tiss~ that the oamnisnlnnersl oourt had Dower to ratify what it had the orialnal berer to autho>lza. Here the appll&atloa had been madeend the salary fired by thb ~alonerx~ court In advanoa or the sex+-

value 0r the ser~iosaDeIfOnartd cannofbe inquired Into. Kor

# is-itmaterial that the justlae iaotuelly peid the full?$75,00 to the .Aaputy eaeh month as the 8ervlose wera readereA.N tundereaoring aura) Artiole 3, 3eotlon 53, OSthe Constltutlon of Taxaa, reads:

“The LeglsIaturashallhave no powr to grsnt, or to authorize anp aounty or munlelpal authority to &rent, any extra ooinpsnsatlon; ras or allaanee to a publia offloer, agent, servant or eontraotor, after servlos h&sbeen rendered, or a oontreeot has been entered into, and performed in whole or ln pert; nor pay, nor authorize the papent of, any eloisl aroatsd against any oounty or munlolpalltp of the state, under anysgresmsnt or oontraot, madewithout authority ot law.” You are, therefore, regpeotfully aAvlseA that it is the opinion or this de$artamnt that the question pmpounded by you should be answered in ths negative. Very truly yours