OFFKx OF TiiE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

l R ILD c . YAmi 

.-ì-ma 

Ho n. Charloy b&hart 

State Treaeorer 

Austin, Texus 

Dear k!r. Lockhart: 

By your letter of J 

4365 of the Rsrised Cf+i 

procedure for the lssaan warrants by the 

Ct6te Cmptrolle of this Cepartzent 

upon the follow1 

plichte warrant 

sense that the 

paid by the Treasurer? 

wsrrsnt IS 165Pml, it? 

oller to write a letoriginal, or does 

Qt0J6RtlCa~1y Stop payhe payee ha6 In his po66esslon both 

nd the dapllcats warrant, is it in- 

<” If in question three either the orlgfnal 

or the Cupiicate om be paid, doep the &OLCS of 

which is ta be paid lie tith the payee, the Traasurer, or the State Conptroller?w 

&tie18 4365, B. C. S. 1925,,it ES f0llC~~S: 

*The Comptroller, whet satiufied that any Orlginal warrant dram upon the State Treasurer has been 

lost or deetroysd, Or uhan Amy certificate or other 
808, Oharh7 Lookhartt b60 6. 

~WAW 0r ttwbt0en08~ ~JWO&b 7 I tb 0 l tr a stb g 

bati OS tha Stat0 ham boat hat, is l uth o r fs%a e4 

frao 8 duplioato arrant fn lko or the orfghul 

wur?Ont 0T l daplloatr Or a Oopr d 8uob oertiSloat*, 

or~8thmr ovidoaoa H imlobtdnoir In 110~ of ruoh 

otfgful~ hut a0 mob duplloatb warrant, or other 

bribemae or lndebtedners, ahall lmrtae anti1 tha 

l ppllomt ha8 riled with the Omptrollar hl~ arfl- 

&tit, stating thut ho f8 thetmo maer of ruoh 

lnstrua6nt, aDa tht the aa8* im 1x1 Saot lost or 

4eBtrOfub ,and ihall all tllo rlth the Ocaptroller 

hfr bond in double the amount of tha olalm with two 

or 8ore good and mtllfloiont eQrotlo#, payable to 

the Governor, to + approved by tt, Comptroller, 

and oondftloned fliat the &pplloant will hold the 

Stat0 hatiers ab return to ttia Ocmptrollmr, upon 

d-nd being Jmde thararor, uch duplloatam or 

OOPibS, or the amount of money oeacad therein, togethar dth all aorta that may l ocrue against the 

State on oollecting the ~83~. After the laauanaa 

of 6aiU dupllcata or oopy if tha Coaiptrollsr 6hOUld 

ascertain that the eana uaa improperly lsauod, or 

that t3e applicant or party to wholrr the same was 

lseued was not the cwner thereof, he shall at onoe 

demand the return ol said duplioate or oopy if unp&id, or the mount paid out by the Stata, if so 

psfd; and, upon talluro of tbo party to return aanio 

or the amount of money -1184 tar, muit shall be 

InatItuted upon said bond In Travis County." 

Anrworiq yOur rlrst quertloa, me am of opinion that the 

irauance oi thi duplioate warrant does nof %n all InstancaB 

rold the original warrant in the ranse that the original 

oanaot over be lugally pa!Q brthe Treamrer. A reading of 

the ontIr* prorlsians of Artlrlr 4355 would srom to lndioatr 

that it was tha latention or thr Leglalaturo that the OrbiMl 

warrant rhould be paid fr lt should turn up In the hands of 

an innooent holder, and that the State should proceed over 

an6 against the holder of the duplicate warrant upon hfa 

bodl for the reoovary oi the mbunt paid out bn the dEPlicat4 

rarraat by the Stat6. 

Tour second question lo'an~~ared a8 r0ii0+76: when a 

duplicate warrant Is Issued, it 18 not neoeasary for the 

Comptroller to write a letter atopplng PaJmpnt On the orWna1.. 

Since a duplicate *arrant 1~ only authorized to be 188~~4 
no*. Ohmlay Lo&hart, 96&r 8. 

k&n the Barptrollor br boea e8tlriled tht tbr orlglul 

ha bwa lad or domtro~tl, 1t im dirfirult to l oa OT 

\udorrtald to whar the aaptrolle? might addrem 8uch l 

httor step p tiq PayMEt On the O?& iBd. ThO ;ONWiOO Of 

tho dup llmuarrant to l utaatlrmlly rtopr -pant on the 

orl&ml, lnwhr a8 the orl&ml ruJ be p*ronted for 

payment by a perwa not l n lnaorent ltooldor thereab. And 

by tho twm %umoaat bolder,w aa used in our rmply to 

r o uquontione, r we mm 4 person wh o hml r o p uirted h o 

origiaal warrant from tha pay.8 thereof, not a persom who 

has eopulnd the orlp$aal warrant through maas other than 

by rirtue OS a lauful waigmoat fram fha origl~l 9ay.a. 

or from 4 ptrwa to whom l uoh orlglnal:warrant was lawfully 

l 6rlgaed by the original Qayee. 

overly your third quaetlon, you are advised that 

Artlola 4668 oonttmplttos thet when the 98~00 prersatr both 

the ox-i&al and the dupliocite warinat, or bar iB hl* 

po4sssslan both the original and the duplleato warrant, 

that the original warrant thall be paid and the duplloato 

nrraat ahall be, at the sass time, wrrmdarod. It both 

thr original ad the duplloate warrant turn up ln the hen68 

of the orlgtnal payee,. it becomes quite apparmt that tha 

&plloet.s must neoteserfly htvt been improperly fewed; 

therefore, the last etnttros of Article 4365, requiring 

the Camptroller in such ln~tanos to mt ome demand tha roturn or the duplicate, lr unpaid, governr. 

In ritw of the anewtrto your third qusstlon, it beoomer 

unnsceseary to answer your fourth question. 

Yours very truly 

R. W. Pblrohlld 

AE6iet.Wlt