OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAG 

AUSTIN 

Honorable A. J. ~Lqakett 

County Attorney 

Ctn?ial county 

New Sraunfel8, Texee 

Dear SirI 

spinion on a questl6n 

of Art. 8986, Reri8ed 

Ltf13ieXoX one-half ot one per bent 

recelpta of each executor, adminisupon the a?prcral of the eihlbltcr 

ment of the aboount of euoh exeoutor, 

, but no more than one @oh 

eU on any anount reoelved br 

strator or guardian.' 

"The queetion is! 

"Does the phrase 'aotual cash reoeipts ef each 

exeoutor, adzainistrator or guardian, upon the approval 

of the exhlblta and the tIna settlement of the aoo,ountt, 

include cash on band at time of death of teetator or 

intestate as &own in such aocount? 

. . 
Honorable A. J. Luokett, page 2 

*The only deoialon crlorely related to this 

question is Willie ‘18. Harvey (Clr. App.) 26 S.W. (2d) 

page 289. Hem the court had under consideration a 

cam of an Independent “Xxeoutor, and not an a&ministrator, guardian or executor uith will annexed, the 

cmrt 8dsiI;LttinfT 'tizls apeclfio case presented here 

on agpoal may not be reg?.rded a6 ir. its (Art. 3926) 

scope.' 

WYour opinion Ho. O-811 would award to the County 

Judge the coPlnisslon Of OW-half of one per eent upon 

all aeah received by so ereeutor including sohey borrowed 

by the exeoutor to pay olaiars a&air& the estate. From 

thls deoision it is obvious that the question doe8 not 

depend on whether the caeh wad earned or is the oorpw 

of the estate. Ii aoacy borrowed is aoney reoeived by 

the executor, then surely oath on hand turned over to 

tho exeoutor at the beginning of the aooouuting period 

1.8 also money reeelved.* 

We note that you say, “Your opinion Eo. 0-2ll 

would award to the County Judge the ooraui8alon of one-heli 

of oae per sent upon all oash reoeived by an executor lneludia6 money borrowed by the exeoutof to pay claim.8 e.gaiaeh the 

eetate. From thLe dsolslan it ir obvious that the question 

does not depend oh whether the oash was earned or $8 t&e 

corpus of the etha to. It pLonsy borrowed is rmreg received 

by tha exeoutor, then surely cash on hand turned over to the 

execl;tor tt the beginning of the aaoountinq ;rcriod is aleo 

aoney recelwcd .% 

Ap2arcntly you have misaomatrued our opinion No. 

O-811 where 0.1 page 4 of said opinion it Is expressly stated; 

* it is established that the term lreoeipt* 

as use; in'the statute doe6 not m&race cash on deposit 

in banks at the t&e of the death or the teetator. Tex. 

Jur. Vol. 25, page 260; Coodwln VE. aowns, 280 S.W. 512; 

Gillis va. Yarva~, 26 Y.3. (2d) 2S2.A 
Honorable A. 3. Lualsett, page 3 

In the ease of killis v. Harvey, supra, it is 

true that the court had under consideration a case of an 

independent sxeeutor. However, the court expressly stated 

in pert, "An independent executor Is not included within 

the term exeoutor, as implied in the artiale, and the term 

reoeipt therein used does not embrace oash on deposit in 

the bank at the death of the testator. . . .” 

The eomrt further stated in this case, *It is 

thought the terrr”aotual crash reooipts* should be held to 

spsoifioally deraribe monies received by the ereoutor other 

than oash or protits of the estate nhioh was on hand when 

the tertator died, because the words wed point to and imply 

that meanilrg.’ 

In vien of the foregoing, the above etated 

question is respectSully ansrsred in ths negative. 

We also dlr6ot your attention to our opinion 

So. O-4447, nheredn it was held that the County Judge of 

Klaberg County was not entitled to a aamalsrion a8 prarlded 

by Art%ole S9236, Vernon's Annotated Civil Ztatutes, under 

the given faotr. We enoloee a copy of opinion No, O-4447 

Sor your oonvsnlenos. Apparently you have 8 copy of our 

opinion Bo. O-811 and ue do not enolore a oopy of the 

Trustin& that the iorbgoin$ fully ammets 

lnqulry, we are 

SW. 

YOW 

Youre very tlu1y 

BY 

Ardell WillhaS 

Asal stant