C.. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

\ i February 14, 1939 

Donorable Cao. 2. French 

A? 

County Attorney 

Deinderileld, Texee 

Dear Sir: 

This Oifice ia 

SO, 1939, arking for an opi 

oontraot madb on Deoember 6, 

Edgar Eutohings, ie e valfd 

her a delinquent tax 

Morris County and 

its $a=m8 on De 

oontraot was E 

You were then 

iranuary 1, 193 

t provides for a 

1s to termfnate under 

her advise that the 

era1 and the Comptroller. 

oeeded yourself on 

outed the waiver required. 

mdseionera, who olgned the 

6, and the oounty also hae e 

d,oommissioners indloated their 

e the same was entered Into, 

has been no euoh indication or retiflofiioe, nor has the newly eleoted 

his approval. 

erioan Jurieprudenoe, 210, the following 

. . . The members of’ e board og county 

oommdssioners cannot, however, oontraot in referenoe 

to matters which are personal to their suooessors. 

Thus, R contract which a board.of oounty oommiaalonera 

attempts to employ a legal edviaer for a period of 
Hon. Ceo. B, Preneh, Pebruary14, 1.939, Page 2 

three ye&e, to oomznence three months " in h he future and 

after the time for the eleotion of e person to fill 

the vaoanoy oeuaed by the exptration of the tew of 

orfice or one x&ber of the board, the tern or exployment extending over a perioc curing which all the 

members of the board as oonstituted et the time of 

the contwot will retire thererroz unless reeleoted, 

Is agelnst pubwe polioy . . .* 

Thb seema to be the law in Texas, which is expressed 

in 11 Tex. JUT., 651, es followa: 

'Ordinarily, contracts 3ade by e coxmIaalonersL 

court may not be repudiated serely because the pereonnel 

or the body has. subsequently changed. It is only uh6re 

:the employmeut by a oaamissionsrs~ oourtis personal 

8nd oonildential, aa in the ease of BP attornay, that 

It la held that one co~esloners* court has uo power. 

to bind its qluoot%mnwa 

This last quoted stiWuwnt’ig~ based on the only~.Texas 

aa6e on the -subject the oase'of gulf BitulithZo 

Onpaty, 11 2. 8. (24) SC%%, whioh eays~: 

Co. v. BOueces 

.."' 

*It 'la only where the employment. by a cozmia&on--’ 

era* uourt Is .pereonel an+,s.cnfidential, as ,ioX~.tLtb ease. 

0r an dttornay, that It ia xs9Wtbat .one 00nmlsrrion6am*~~ 

oourt eeunot bind its eue~es)a‘lY: 

The court deo&Mcns ix m@% of the other states that We 

heva found hold that one oouule8SoSex~* oourt oaanot bind ita 

suooea6or~ on personal contrset8,~ .&ffey County v. Wth, SC 1Can. 

SW, 32 Pac. 30 (employment oi oounty printer); Prsnklln Oouaty 

v. Ranok, 9 Ohio C. C. -301 (lr. loyam& of courthouse 

Ulliken v. Edgar County, .&?!il. 828, 32 8.:%. 493 j","lont' 

of poorhouse auperintender,t]; Board of Commissionera 1; Taylor, 

123 Ind. 148, 23 N. g. e& (mploymmt or,attcirney); end billett 

v. Calhoun County, 217 P;Le. 667, 117 So. 311 (employ%ent of 

attorney). 

i:e believe +;?& the reasons w‘hich forbid 8 oommisaioncrs~ 

court to enter into a contract for the employment of e man in a 

persoml end oonflde~,tia& oapaoity extending beyond the tern of 

office of the indlri.duels aomposing such oomaiasionere* oourt epplfes 

with peculiar force to the employment of EttorneyS for the OOllection of deli!lqUCjnt taxes. 
lroca. do. 11. Fmoh, fsbnuryl4, 'lQS9, Page S t 

A tax oolleotor-attomoy *rould need taot, petlence 

an4 dlll.:Onoe, and e oansi8tslonors' Oourt a3uld lxwe every 

lncsntive to warit a aen tlth those qualltlds. 3~~31~ comdadoers nleht, am5 in aany lnstano~(~, would vlea the situation 

13 aa entirely alrrsr4& light rr0n the lnocmi~ ooz~68loner6. 

In skwt, oeoh oo8kai8610nerav court 0haa be entit1ec to mnke Its 

own oontrects touohbag on th6 aettor. 

?W-tlsars~~re,th~roaaybe a change ln the paraonaelo~ 

the 00ulltp ntt0roef8 0rri04 :a dmh mfm the timy 4i60t4a 

oounty ntt?mey would have rl@ts wh%oh oamot be overlooked. 

Art;010 7s32, Rs7ifmd antutea, prwia06 ror th4 00uey 

attorney to r6~rosent tne State sod oouaty ln malts ror dUnqtmt 

tax86 and pswitm r-8 ror suoh 6ervloo6. we 40 not b4um that 

an oiatgolne oomlaaloner8' oourt, 

ping oounty attom 

lawxxlsnt3 Ooun~~~~ 

soy 0r the rl tto~~pxysmt tka 

mu to oolbot the xmnpbr8~ao thorer0r. Furtho~~re, w3 bolhvo 

that ondsr 6uoh ohoui~6tabnoo8 the ooontp n?xnal~ at leeat haye the 

ohange of havln$ a new scanty attora4y who w0til.C attsad to ouoh 

matters r0r tha statutor)- ma pmviaeb ror hiha da4 rhLah am 

gomrally a great coal les8 than the oaprroi68lonspaZU the C&O,, 

leotorcoetornoy. It 16 tma that in thlr lostan& tho~pswant 

oounty attorney 1s tb 8~ smn uh+ wa# ooaaty attorney at the 

th the COntntOt -8 B&i*, but t?le f-wi pti?~Oiph ia the 

-8 

Fe do not bdl41vo that the autlon or the tvio iam W&O 

#re lattw to take aKlos as wamla:crlonera In lxdloatl'ng that they 

qqeo~ml tha oontraot has any beuiag on the cueatlon at hand. 

suah lnaioaticn on their pert wao aot qt orricfal eat and oould not 

bo euoh until t!mg hna qualiflsd ttir their reapeotlve orflce8. 

iIbae%t any ratlfloatlon 0P the4 oontrnat. Lt la, t~iaretore, 

our oplnlon t&t ?sa!!e lb not a bindInt: obligation upon nOrTi8 

County. 

“fOUri VSV tNry