OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

:._ ‘.a’ i,* AUSTIN 
Bon. Fred Norris, peg8 2 

d&putlaa, aaalatanta or olarka, atatlag by sworn 

appllaetlon the number naa4ed, the position to be 

filled end the amountto be paid. Said applloetlon 

ah811 be eaoompanlad by a atatenmnt ehoulng the 

probable reoaipta rrom fess, oonmilaalona end oompenaatlon to be oollaoted by said oirioe during the 

tleoal year and the probeble aiaburaemente Wloh 

ah811 inolude all aahriaa end axpanaaa of said 

oiiloa~ and aeld court ahall leaks its order authorirlng the eppointmant 0r auoh deputies, aaelatenta 

and obrka end Six the oomp@naatlon to b4 paid them 

within the lfmitatlona herein praaorlbad and datermine the number to be appointed as in tha dlaosatIoo 

or said oourt nuy be propart provided that In no case 

shall the ~Commlaaloner6~ Court or any member thereof 

l ttampt to influanoa the appolntmMt 0r any p4raon 

as Qaputy, aa818t8nt or &ark In any offloe. Upon 

the entry or aueh order the orlloera applyfng for 

auoh aaalatanta, deputies or clerks ahall be authorized to appoint them; provided that said wmpanaation ahell not aroaad the maximum amount harelnatter 

sot sut. The oompanaation uhioh may be allorad to 

the daputlaa, aa~latanta or clerk8 abova named for 

their earvleoa shell be a raaBoneble one, not to 

4xoaad the rollowhg 8mourtta~ 

“1. In aountka harfng a popul.atlon of twantyfirs thousand (25,000) or lees lnhebitanta, firat 

assistant or 4hi8r deputy not to l x o a a d ltlg b ta a n 

Hundr ed (bl800.00) Dollero per annrrai other aasfatQata, 

deputies or olarka not to axaead Flftesn Kuntlrrd 

($1500.00) Dollars per annum l aeh.” 

Thus ~8 ass that the oommiaa1onare~ eourt is empowered to 

either authorize your county attorney to appoint Ip aaalatant 

or to rajaot his applioatl~n for au& euthorlty, as the majority 

0r the oourt may dasm wigs end proper. In oase the aourt datarmines that an assistant should be allowed, neither the oourt nor 

any member thereof has any powar’ovar naming the lndlridual. 

Tarrant County v. Smith (Tex. Clv. kpp.) 81 5. K. (2nd) 557; 

State V. Johnson (T4x. Clv. kpp.) 58 S. P. (2d) 110. 

In allowing the county attorney the aer~loaa Or en eaaiatad, or aaslatenta, ii your 00mtulealonara~ oourt does 80, the 

salary to be paid by the wunty should be fixed in the order4 
Eon. Irad BIorri a, page 8 

in the 4ourt~a dla4ratlon the salary m47 not “a~oaa4n the amount 

Btated in k%ialO bOWi, aupra. As no minimum la pr4aerlbad; 

there la no prohibition of a salary as Low as $1.00 mr y~r. 

The amount of t&e salary would rest v&thin the dlaoretlon of the 

*o&St. 

ita know of no rsaaon baaed upon an9 provision of the 

statutes or Conetltution whlah rroul6 praolud4 the ootity attornay from p&ng his aarlatant l $ditlonal aompanaatian from his 

awn runda. Suoh ratter ~+ulld bo inths antuse oi 8 private 

aontraot bafmaan the parties. 

four n4xt quration la whath4r ui eaalatant ocmaty attarnay la required to make bond. Whll4 the 4tatuta8 provide that 

oartain. daputiar, 4mployasa an4 eaalataeta shall glv4 bonds, 

(a. Q-. sheriffa, art. OS?0 R4rlaod ~1~11 Statuka, 1986; tax 

oollootar8, Art. 6881, ata.1, w4 rind no l u4h nqul~uent as 

to arrlataetr oounty attema 

Is* 

While 'krtlok b81, Retired airi 

Statutea, 19125, reguiraa a8 atanta oouhty.attamoy~ta her4 the 

aa~~ wpUalifj.eatlenam as th4lr prlaoi alad we think it olaar the 

taw has raiaranoa to the “wtalliriaat P on8 repuirti M l uoh 

oounty attorney8 Uat4d un&r Art1014 838, 1.0.~ @hall be duly 

lloenae6 &a an 8ttomey an& mutt raaldd in the oouaty where 

l a svlng. Thardore, y o u are advised th a in t Our a p f& iil uOn ob 

assistant, may not be required to make bond. 

loup Qaxt wish to kn4w whath4r, if th4 o a untl y tt4rnay 

joins th4 l r4, ha 44ul.d require the payment or him l elary; 

also tha ,Hlary or hia aa8lafant $ 4fa0, rQathar the sot of jolning thi l nq rauld be a 4urrioiant vacation 0r the atiioa that 

the ~mi8alan4ra' oourt ootid detG.ara the ofilaa vaoant and 

RDDtiint 8 new aounty attom4y. 

Olearly, It the orrlee is raoatod by auoh aotlan an the 

part ot the oounty l ttom4y, the oounty would not owe the salary 

t4 4ith4r th4 prinoipal or t4 the aaalataut~ On th4 other hand, 

if th4 ofilos 14 not vasetad, ff the county 4ttornay ratalnr the 

44~~. thou@ 4nllatsd In the araiy, ho would be rntitlsd to its 

smo1uPrnte. Thesefore the all importmt question la whether 

the oo%miadonera* court fe authQriae6 to dealare a vaoanoy an& 

make an appointment. 

In ths oaae 0r Iiamilton V. Xing (TSX.Ciir&?&L, lQZe1, 206 

S. pi. 958, appellant Raaeilton wa4 sh4 duly alaotad county attorney or &&bin4 County, had entar4d upon the dutl44 of his Ott104 

@id had appointad a deputy. Iis WRB inducted intm the army in 
Hon. %red Norris, pa&e 4 

isarch, 1918f in September 

court doalared the otiioo 

of the oaomo year the 

vaoant and appointed qqollee King 

oounty~ attmiby, notwlthstendln& that k~U.Eon~s assistant 

had at ell times dis&arged {during appellant’c absscce) the 

duties Gi' the Office, 

opinion; 

go Quota .f~rt3.ue.nt perta of tbs oourtls 

n 

. . There oan be na doubt or the ocrreotriolo of they appellant- th at the 

UO2UU.i srlonersl oourt of c oeuEtr in this'stat 

has no anthoritP i)r power to remove from ottloo 

auy county ofiiolal or to declare a vaoanoy Ln 

anY ouoh offioe. but ouoh mthority Deems to bye 

tested alone in the dimtriot oourt. coMtitutfon 

f the State of ima Art, 6 B r?i It im proiidod by Seotlon 81 a! the #ame A&iols of the 

Constitution, howorer, that, in oaoo of a raoanoy 

in the ottice of oounty ottoraey, tbo *nsmlorfonera* court of ouoh eeu~ty ohal.lhkeve powor to appoint a aounty attome]r until the a*rt genortil 

cleation. Sea Tao, Bhlinger t. Rankin, 9 Ter. 

be detewlnti is, not whs%her %ho aomi 1 

Cir. ApPe 484, %Q 8. W; S!Io. -the atiqet~o~~ to 

9 

oourt of Sabin6 County W&I aothorlroa to deoloro 

a vaeanw in the orfioa of uountlr tt0m0p of 

fiablne Oounty. but the ~tmstion Is: 11(au them a 

06 to be tl1l.o 

was oush vaoano~ shown by the pleading&in thro 

oaso? 

*As stated above, It io alls6od by appellant 

that he MI a oltleen~ of 3abino Oounty, and that 

he wao only temporar,ily abrexit ~IWQ Cho oounty, 

and that he had never been fn any msrinor lprpeaohed 

by any oompetont aathhbrity, nor hio (PII~G@ doolar66 

vaoant by any euthorited tribunal, on6 that tho 

duties of the 0rfic0 *rem mti3.l boin,S dizohurged 

by Biro thm ugh hio legally oonstftutod assfotant. 

On tho other Send, the ohowing~ made by appellor, 

In his answer wals, net that eppallant had removed 

permanently trem Sabiw Oeunty, but rim~ly that he 

was absent ?rom the otmnty at the tima of the aotlon 

of th.6 oorsnaleslonerrf court in deolarlng the oliios 
lion. Fred Norris, pa4e 5 

vacant end appointing appellee the&o, end that 

appellant hRd been 80 absent Worn said covunty 

shoe mroh before suck action on the part of the 

oormnieeionere~ court it September following, and 

the t eudh absswta w&a oauaed by the fact that 

appellant had been inducted involuntarily into 

the Army of the United States. This alla&Ion 

of the anewnr showed,of oourm, that eppellent 

wae actuelly absant from Sablne County et the 

time of euah aotion on the part of the oonmirslonore* oourt; but as to how long euoh absence would 

oontinue we not ehown, nor wae any faot alleged 

in the answer from which the dumtion of appellant’s 

absenoe oould be determined, other then the statemnt that he wae in the military service of the 

United States involuntarily. 
Ilone Prod iiorri5, page b 

plsedinge in thLe oese upon whfch alone the dietrict judge crlted In d,enying the temporary injunction, and for that reaeon we are of the oplnion that, ae the pleadinee stood, appellant we8 

entitled to the writ 88 preyed for, end that the 

dietriot jud 

soaring Our6 ‘5 

e erred in denying eem~,~ (UnderIt 1s our opinion thst under the fixate eubmltted by you, 

the comisalonere~ court of Polk Gounty my not declare that 

a vaoanoy edst8 in the offiCe of oounty attorney upon hi6 

mrely entering the army, end appoint a euooe8eor to the present inoumbent. 

It ie our further opinion that under Be6tion M or 

krtiole S or the Conrtitutlon of Texas and Articlee 5970, et 

seq., Vernon’o Annotetad Clril Stetutw juriedlotlon te drtermine the setter of vaitaney in the ofkoe of oourity attorney ie 

vested in the district court. The cult Is in the neture of 8 

quo warrento end met be Instituted an6 oonduoted In the name 

et the State of’ Texas by or under the direction of the dlrtrlot atbm*y. State v, Starnee (T.c.A.) !?Ab S. W. 4Ma 

lIewe v. Stats (T.C.A.) e!B Y. E. 677: Joh&on v. )r:ooney 

(T.C.A.) Ei41 S. ii'. SOS: 

You are further advised that until a vaeenay 18 eetebl 

ed, both the co%ty attorney and i&i assj,stent “re- sntlqep_ 

.t eht 0 

thelr pay from the county8 the oounty attornsy to hi0 68tabli Cdlad rtatu’tory sal@q and the e~srl'rt~knt to the salary fixed by 

the court under the prwiaions of Artiolo 3008, $upra. 

.Trusting the above eatiefactorlly answer6 your Inquiry, 

we are ,. 

Yourr very truly 

ATTOW 

rBp 

OENml. or TXAS 

/ 

B 

Ben&u&z C;ooball 

A8si atant