OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ron. A. A. Miller 

County Attorney 

Rlswton~ county 

mwton, %n-ns 

question has 

,on the above stated 

lieved ix-m all 

The commlssiomtrs~ 

1111 0rfi0er8 t0 

y understanding 

'bin the'law when 

one oan objeot to 

at signed it arter 

5998,, $001 an& 6002, R,. C, 8. r&tad 6s 

The oftiofal bond of eaoh 

offloer shall be exsautbd by U with two 

or,nore good and 8ufffoient sureties or a 

solvent surety 0-y authorlead to do business la this 8?iata. 
'W-t.6002 hysumtyonanyofflolel bond 0-r any oolmty offlof3r may apply to 

the 0amrl~~i0m~8 00nrt t0 b9 r0iwt9a f20m 

hiaaonn, amlth00ount~010rlr shall thsrertpon 

lofme ~a notice to nalit offloer nith a oopy 

of the app&,ioatlon, which *hali be ~ellrod upon 

s&l ~Sftoar by the oheriit or any oonatable 

ai the county, azU said atfleer 80 notiffed 

ehaU,upansuchssrvloagaOaetoereralsath6 

funut%ons of his c&floe, exoept to preserve 

anyreomda crprcpertylnhifs~oharge,and in 

o&se of a sherYr or ocmntable, to keep ~xQonem, pronema tho peaoe and exwute vmrrante 

o? arrest, and his off100 @tall bemme raoant 

unlesshe@eanmbom&nfthlntwentydays 

l'raathetime ofxwmlringswhnctlee, fi 

a .nm bond is glrtm anIl appxove6, &he fomttr 

6uretlss shall bs Iliaobmged frcm any uPbil%ty 

for the ralsoomlwt or the ~r%noipal after tl# 

approval ef th0 nenr bcn& 

"ArL 6QO& When the owadeeloners 00&t 

beames SatiafleQ that the bmd of any uouzity 

omaex v&%oh ha.8 been 

require a new bend or additi& sealtrity to 

be given. 8&u ~0~2% nhall oawe ekeid tef’ifaer 

to be ofted Cc appear at a tq of their ocurt 

not 1tcWthan five days al%er serpioe, and 

shall take swh a&ion a8they de- heat for 

the puhlto intore&;, and their &oiston eha3.l 

be final and no appeal shall Ue thernfz%nn." 

%Qer the pmvialonn of the ebcve qucteQ stntuton, when the otiaefon~' oeurt .beoonee satlstied 

that the bend oi any oounty oiiioer whloh has been approved 

by it tar any cause is lnauffiolent they aim33 requ%re 

a new hond or aMitiomx1 seourity and that the 'orflae or 

offloes t3hall beoom vaotmt Unless the offfoer or Offiat)273 give a n8w bontl within tmantp day8 ftftsr 5eTptoe 

a8 mvlded in the statute. 
Hon. A. A. I:Iller, Page 9 

The matter of U8termInIng whether or not the 

bonds of county offloiale are from any aause fnanfticlent '8 within the dlsoratlon of tht oommisslonar~* 

court, and the oommIasloners* court hae authority end 

It Is wIthIn their dleoretion to determine whether or 

they shall rsclulre a new bond or additional seourlty 

to be given. 

mt 

The aomm18sionere1 court may order a new bond 

by and upon their own motion or upon application ror a 

eu.rety to be relieved. Se8 the 08888 Of State VS. W811S, 

61 Tex. 56 and Flnoh vs. State, 9 9W 08. 

You are reapeotf'ully advlsed that It Ie the 

opinion of this department that the oo5Iseloners~ oourt 

did not act beyond its authority in giving notioea t0 

other officers to make n8w bonds. You (LT8 further advised that when the oomm.lerrionsrs* oourt beoomee satf8- 

fled that a bond of any oounty offioer whloh ha8 been 

approved by It Is from any oauee IneuffioIant, it ~@y 

require a new bond or additional ssourlty to be given 

upon it0 own motion. 

Trusting th:t the foregoIng answers your inquiry, we remain 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEYOENERAL OFTEXAS 

BYUdL 

Ard811 wI11iemS 

Assistant 

ATTORNEY GENF