March 7, 1952 

Hon. Sam Ii. Davis Opinion No. V-1418 

District Attorney 

Civil Courts Bldg. Re: Constitutionality of ArtiHouston 2, Texas cle 1994, V.C.S., which 

authorizes district courts 

to permit the investment 

of funds accruing under a 

judgment in favor of a 

Dear Mr. Davis: minor. 

Your request for an opinion of this office 

relates to the constitutionality of Article 1994, 

V.C.S. You state there is now pending in the 55th 

District Court of Harris County a proceeding involving a minor child who was awarded $1,000 and there 

is now on file an application for permission to invest this fund. The Judge of that court has expressed 

concern as to the constitutionality of Article 1994, 

V.C.S. 

Article 1994, V.C.S., provides in part as 

followa: 

%inora, lunatics, idiots or non 

compoa mentia who have no legal guardian 

may sue and be represented by ‘next frlend' 

under the following rules: 

“4. The judge of the court in which 

the judgment is rendered upon an application and hearing, in term time or vacation, may provide by decree for an inveatment of the funds accruing under such judgment. Such decree, if made in vacation, 

aball be recorded In the minutes of the 

succeeding term of the court." 

Section 16 of Article V of the Texas Constitution provides that the County Court shall have the 

jurisdiction of a probate court and shall appoint 

guardians of minors, idiots, lunatics, or persona non 

compos mentis and transact all business pertaining to 
Hon. Sam W. I~vis, page 2 (v-1418) 

those persons as provided by lav. Your question 

is whether the provisions of Article 1994, V.C.S., 

quoted above, are in conflict with this section of 

the Constitution. The constitutional jurisdiction 

of the District Courts as set out in Section 8 of 

Article V of $he Texas Constitution provides that 

those courts . . . shall have general original 

jurisdiction over all causes of action whatever 

for which a remedy or jurisdiction is not provided 

by law or this Constitution, and such other juriadlctlonL original and appellate, as may be provided 

by law. 

It is well settled that in determining 

the constitutionality of a statute It is the duty 

of the courts to uphold the legislative enactment 

if at all possible and to adopt any reasonable construction which will place the statute in harmony 

with the Constitution, rather than one which will 

cause the statute to be in violation thereof. Pickle 

v. Finle;E, 91 Tex. 484, 44 S.W. 480 (1898). 

In McClendon v. Qaha 6 S.W.2d 796 

(Tex. Civ. App. 1926) the Co eld that where 

funds are invested by'order of the District Judge 

under Article 1994, V.C.S., the investment la binding upon the minor, although the money is lost by 

reason of a bad investment. 

In Patillo v. Allison, 51 S.W.2d 1041, 1043 

(Tex. Civ. ADD. 1932). it was contended that aoolication was m&e to-the District Court under Article 

1994~-by a person as guardian of the minors who had 

received funds under a judgment and that ainoe that 

person was not guardian the order for investment was 

obtained by misrepresentation. The Courtheldthat 

the District Court involved must have found that the 

applicant for the right to Invest was not guardian of 

the minors, since the District Court's order was based 

upon the provisions of Article 1994, and consequently 

the investment order was proper. In so holding, the 

court stated: 

?Said article firt. 19957 in express 

terms authorized the court, upon application and hearing, to make an order directing the investment of the funds belonging 
- . 

Hon. Sam W. Davis, page 3 (v-1418) 

to these mlnora. The Century Dictionary defines the word *Invest’ as follows: ‘To employ for some profitable 

use ; convert into some other form of 

wealth, usually of a more or leas permsnent nature, as In the purchase of property or shares or in loans secured by 

mortgages ’ , etc. The expenditure of the 

funds belonging to these minors in the 

purchase of real estate in their respective names was clearly within the authority conferred. The investment ordered by the court in this case was not 

invalid, as contended by appelleea, because the interest vested in the minors 

thereby was an undivided interest In said 

tract of land instead of the entire interest therein. A similar issue was involved in McClendon v. Gahsgan, above 

cited. . . .” 

(1 

. . . Had Mrs. Allison been accorded the right to withdraw such funds 

as the duly and legally qualified and 

acting guardian of the estates of said 

several minors, said order should and 

doubtless would have merely directed that 

the same be paid to her and her receipt 

taken theref or. Such a guardian has a 

legal right to the possession of the personal estate of the minor and upon receipt 

thereof is required to account therefor to 

the probate court. 

4225, and 4297. 

R.S. arts. 4164, 4168, 

Should such a guardian 

desire to invest moneys belonging to the 

minor in real estate, application for authority to do so must be made to the probate court and the propriety and desirability of such an investment determined 

by that tribunal. R.S. arts. 4182, 4183, 

and 4184. The order of the court in this 

case did not direct that the funds of the 

minors be turned over to Mrs. Allison, but, 

on the contrary, directed that such funds 

be invested by the purchase of an undivided interest in said tract of land and that 

they be paid by the clerk directly to the 

grantor in the deed conveying such tract 

to Mrs. Allison and said minors, and made 
Hon. Sam W. Davis, page 4 (V-1418) 

the receipt of such grantor an acquittance to the clerk of further liability 

on account of such funds. We are not 

warranted in assuming that the district 

court, in making the order under consideration, was attempting to usurp the 

authority and jurisdiction of the probate court. The mere fact that Mrs. Allison may in her application have deslgnated herself as 'guardian and next friend' 

of said several minors is of little if 

any import, . . .U 

From the above authorities the Inference 

Is that Article 1994 la not to be construed as being in violation of any of the rights of the County 

Court acting in its capacity as a probate court, but 

that the provisions of Article 1994 operate independent of the action of the County Court in its supervisory jurisdiction of guardians, and when. there has 

been no action by the County Court with regard to 

the appointment of a guardian. So construed, Article 1994 is not in conflict with Section 16 of Article V of the Texas Constitution. We therefore agree 

with your conclusion that Article 1994 is constitutional. 

SUMMARY 

Article 1994, V.C.S., which authorizes 

a judge of a court to provide, upon proper 

application, for the investment of funds of 

a minor is constitutional. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

E. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant 

PRICE DARIEL 

Attorney General 

Assistant / 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

BW:mh