OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

t!onorublo John ii. Szlth 

County Auditor 

Ml0 i:lLIto, County 

Palo finto, Texus 

Gear sir: 

questi~ an o2inio.n of th 

following lncuiries: 

c&'&n fees have 

ollector for prforClerk and Tax Cole gnid to tke Couuty 

titled to then?" 

St Cuotod paTaQ'aph of 

leotloa 0r delinquent 

hat this departmnt in 

o. 6, of ths ':onthly 

ptanlbcr, 1639, has disEIIC~OS~S~ hcXWAth a 

ra.your second ?Luestion 

roparly clnsslfied as 

thoss years the offlcers were subjeot to the mxlnun fea statute. 

In aonsiderlng yam first inquiry, wa have datertincd that the poyulztion of :a10 Ilntc County Cdto 

novor in its history b+en o~ual to or in 3xcess of 25,000 
El!31 

Honorable John E. Smith, pa@ 2 

inhabitants. According to your letter, such county has 

always operntsd under the fee law sinoe its earrctm9nt. 

Ee find, toxovcr, that the 1910 Federal census cevc ~a10 

Pinto County a population of 19,500 inhabitants. This 

population census is 1m;ortant as It had the effect of 

ohan&2 the classification of t~he officers of :;a10 Finto 

County, requiring then to make the reports and k~epthe 

stotoments, bringing them under the operation of the maximum fee law. (See Art1016 5681, R.C.S. 1911). 

Effective December 1, 12S7, the 25th Legislature 

enacted what is knovm es the ::arinur~. Peo Statute, being 

chapter 5 of the Coneral Lav?~ of Texas, First Called Session, kotr of 1697, fixinc, and limltin~ ttie f6e5 af the 

officers nazed in zection 10 tbsreof. In Section 11 of 

this hot, It was provided that all fees collected in ex- 

.COSO of the maxlrnz~ amount allovitd therein to the officers 

for their services and for the services of their deputies 

and assistants were to be paid to the county treasurer, 

prooide~d that where any offioer did not collect his mexiz~ 

amount for any fi3cAl yenr, and who reported delinquent 

fees; ho IUS entitled to retain when collected, such part 

as sufficient to complete the maximum compensatfon for the 

year In which delfliquent fees were chargad, and also rettin 

the one-fourth of the excess belonging to hi:?. 

Friar to the effectivo.date of this Act of.1297, 

all the officer6 named.therein were allmod to retain all 

their fees authorized to be collected. 8ince tbe cffootivo 

date of said dot, hozever, the I,e@lature has seen fit to 

limit and fix the maximu? amount of rees such officers may 

~,r,etain, confining the smallor counties or thoso with popu- 

.Latlon less than 2'5,000 under the iorrer bracket. ?he maxi- 

- mum mount of fees each officer named was allowed to retain, 

was changed fro3 time to ttnlo by subsequent Legislatures, 

with that portion fixed as EI.I allowance of excess fees increased from one-i'ourth to one-third by the Slst LeClslature, 

~' nets 1950, 4th Called 3ession, Ch. 2O.(Ses Article 2891, 

. V.i.C.S.).. 

vndcr the aforcraentioned Aat of lES7, counties 

having a populatron of 15,000 or less, ho.zover, were by 

operation of the provisions of Section 17 of th8 ;rct exengted from cor&15 ucdor its provisions. Section 17 NBS carried forward it the Revised Civil statutes of Texas, 1911, 

as Article 3866. 
892 

Honorable John H. Smith, pace 3 

hy the Acts of 1913, 33rd L;oSisl;iturc, th. 121, 

the provision allowi~15 the exeqtion of coutles of 15,000 

or less inhabitants was cmx~Ced, 80 as to eseqt all counties of Z5,OOO or loss inhabitants, the poQulstl0nt.o be 

detemined by the 1910 Federal CJSSUS. This ?,ctwAs clfectivo SeCmber 1, 1Clln. See Cameron County vs. %or (Corn. 

rAFp.) 61 S. ':i. (25) 433, nff. 42 S..li’. (213) 653; ?:oorzxm VS. 

Tarill, 109 Yex. 173, 202 8. ir. 727. 

In 1919, the 36th Le&lslsture, Acts 1919, Cha?ter 

ISa, repeulaa .'lrtiole-3a98, aeviscd statutes, 1911 (Ocction 

17 Ch. 5, acts 1597 lst,C. S. 25th Lc3.) the effect of 

which vi'rls to bring the officsrs of counties with populction 

of 25,000 or less within the operation or tha ::axizwz Fee 

Law. This Act was effective June la, 1919.. 

I:o%-ever, the 38th Legislature, Acts 1923 Chiipter 

181, reenacted tho provisions of Article 3SQb, 3evIeed Statutes, 1911, ropevled by the 36th Legislature, the effect of' 

which operate6 again to exe@ the offlccrs, except district 

attorneys, of counties hwing a population of 25,OCO inhabitants or less &ccordinG to the last United States census. 

This luw WZIS effeotive 'June 13, lQ23. 

AS to the period from June 18, 1919, cozpletirg 

the fiscal year, this departzont held in en opinion renOered 

by Em. Erwm 3ryac;t, lain;: Zo. 2191 in book 54, pace 19 of 

the Biennicl itenorta of the ;Atorncy Genera, 1918-20 tbot 

all officers v;ci~e placed under the Ililxizxu~~ fee provisjons 

and nust rrzke their reports end keep t&c stotezxnts for the 

umxpirad portion of that fiscal ysm endinf hovE13tor 3O, 

1923. It vmla by analog follosf that with the reenactment 

of this provision by tho'3Sth Ler,islsture, a report would 

have to be za0e SIXI the statements kept covaricg that portion oi' the fiocal. ear u to Jrtlle 13, 1923, when the officers IiPed in uticfe 38d -3586 in counties having s population of 25,000 or less inhabit&de were not subject to the 

~axim~21 m3 stetutes. 

Effective January 1, 1931, the 41st I&iSlature, 

Acts 1930, 4th C. S., Ch. 20, rcpezled Uilcle 3900, ?.evised 

civil statutes 1925, and axendoa various provisions of the 

Z:aximm Fee Lax end pastimlarl~the provisia~~s of this Aot 

operated upon and brought bnck under the ~~~xi~u~ F'ce Lsvr, 

all counties of the lowr bracket whose population wv3.s less 

tbvl 25,000 en8 rcc_uired the reports of cl1 officers of such 

counties. Since Jonwry 1, 1931, nil officers ruxe6 within 

the ~vevi~lo~s of said .'ict and amn?.nents, in counties vxith 

the 6x10 po7ulztion status a3 i‘alo Sinto, have beer. subject 
Honorable John H. 

to tha provlslons 

have been and a?? . _ 

of the Xaximm Fee Law, and such offloers 

re uired to make the rcporta and keep the 

statements proviaed 4 II the law. Se0 Articles 3891, 3892, 

3297, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, end Artioles 3896, 

3898 and 3899, Revised Civil Statutes 1925, end amndatents. 

Smith,’ paSe 4 

Palo Pinto Couaty, having a population of leas than 

20,000 Inhabitants aocording’to the 1930 Federal census, and 

continuing to oo.Dpessate its officora on the basis of fees 

earsed, such county would not be affected b 

Aots of 1935, 44th LeSlslature, 2nd C. S., E 

the solary bill, 

h.465, end amndraents. (Artlole 39126, Seo. 1 et seq. Yernon’s Annotated 

Civil Statutes.) 

,:It is therefore, the opinion of this departclent 

that all. ,‘cXiicera naxed in the :Iaximm Fee Acts in .oounties 

v&o53 population status of prior years take that of Falo 

Pinto County, and whore the officers have remined ooslpensated on an annual fee basis, were authorized to retain all 

their legal fees oolleoted without regard to the mtxinus and 

exoess linits authorized by the l~aximmi yee Statutes, for 

all years previous to January 1, 1931, exoe?tlng the periods 

iron tho publication of the 1910 Federal census to Deotmber 

1, 1914, when the population of ?a10 Pinto County was shown 

to be in exoess oi 15,000 inhabitants and the period from 

June 18, 1919, to June 13, 1923, when the reenaoted Artiole 

3898, Revised Civil Statutes, 1911, becazze effective, (See 

Article 3900, R.C.S. 19251 during which tizze the of’fioers of 

such oounties were subjeot to the Xaximm Fee provJ.sions. 

The fees earned duriag such years, when collected, should be 

paid direct to the officers who earned than. 

Years very truly 

ATT0 

BY. 

ATTORCEY GElZFtAL OF TEXAS