OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bon. K. P. Gexton 

County Attorney 

Cranga County 

Orange, Text a 

hex SlXl ( \ 

Opflllon BIO. ' 

Ret Md the oommb 

n43d herore the 8m 

Pour lettar 

the oplnlon of 

has been rwel 
Roll. w. P. Sexton, Page 8 

S7a.60 par rsonth for the neason that authority to pay the additional mm out OS fees 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@ %nA 87, ooneludas the queetlon. 

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

*From the lsrws presented la the brlcbr, 

however, It appears that the oontroversy aa it 

relstse to the aounty’e cult oonoorns the followlnq itamxt (1) The ruta of $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 f dae that1 ‘Whenwmr an9 Orriobr..r. shall require the xenior8 

of Aeputlea os assletante in the psrfolaance of 

hls duties, he may apply to the oountp aomids- 

(lionera’ aourt of hia oounty iOr authority to 

appoint euoh Aeputles or aaslrtant6, setting out 

by sworn applloetlon the number needed, the position eoucht to be filed, and the amount to be paid, 

. . . . and said court may zaks 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 

hoer salary 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 lk B&s1 co v. w.ite re1 Tex 

13~: 47-P. ‘;.?A tI6!$1 Turner ;. Sarnee 'Tar Clr' 

ArP.r 19 S. W. SA 325, 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. Ed 483, la not applioeble here. There the 

tax oollaator 

ploped and 

without preview authority, ampa i A ralarfee to deputies, the items 

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 made end the salary fired by thb 

~alonerx~ court In advanoa or the sex+- 

value 0r the ser~iosa DeIfOnartd cannof be 

inquired Into. Kor is-it material that the 

justlae i aotuelly peid the full?$75,00 to the 

.Aaputy eaeh month as the 8ervlose wera readereA.N tundereaoring aura) 

Artiole 3, 3eotlon 53, OS the Constltutlon of 

Taxaa, reads: 

“The LeglsIatura shall have 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&s been 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 any sgresmsnt 

or oontraot, made without 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