<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-07-02T08:48:25Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-07-02T08:48:32Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-07-02T08:48:32Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="158443">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="3">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-07-02T08:48:25Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>, </p>
<p></p>
<div class="ocr">THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

Cc. Kann AUSTIN 11, TEXAS

ATTORREY GENEL.

Er. Jin ©. Nowell
County Attorney
Hardenen County
vane, Texas

eer fir: Cplnian Ho... 0-3166—4
Re: authority of Comicsioners'
Court to return e voluntery
paynont rede inte the sounty
g@enerel fund under a niae
take of law,

He have your letter or recent date wherein
Fou reguest tie opinion of thin department upon the
following question, which we quote:

"Where « commission for selling county
BGhOo] land belonging to the pernsnent sehool
fund wes paid to the county Judge out of the
eaiG sehool funde instesd of the general funi,
ond the present holder of title to such lent
Ppeye the smount cf such conmisaion inte the
general fund for the purpose of inducing the
commiscioners' court to transfer sueh anount
froa the general fund te the achoal fund, and
euoh payment vas mace solely for the business
purpose ef removing a cloud on als title and
with «a denial of any legel or moral obligation
te pay such anount, and said payment being
mede under protest by the present holder of

title, and the commicsionerst court ie now .
readg acé willing to refund the amount of such
payment from the faneral fund to the precent
holder of title, doea the corm caolonera*
court have suthority to refund the money by
@ proper order?” -

@hie opinion supplements pur Opinion Ho. 0-3166,
in which we advised you that the Commissioners't Court
unéer facta simiisr to those «tated ebove coulé not

be compeilad tc return the money beqause It hed been
voluntarily paid under e alateke of law. You state

tust you have & copy of thet opinion,

. fhe Commiaaloners* Court is responsible wor
the safekeeping of the county funds and itueandies end
cisburses theae funds only by virtue of the authority —
placed in it by the Statutes and Conetitubion ef thin
State. Zt has been often pointed out that the Cag
micaloners* Court ocouples in respect to county peo
perty and funds ea trust relation, 11 tex. Jur. 625,
</div>

</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<div class="ocr">oooh ae mali

br. Howell ~ sage 2

Dee. 89; Lien. County v. Enowles (Civ. ape) zw: *o Re
589; Liano County v. Jonnson (Cov. app.) 29 ©. %. 56.

Because of the trust relationship which it.
bears to suth funis, the Compminaloners’ Court, we be-~-
lieve, ia bound by the broad principles of law appli-
 eeble to fkdvefariesr in semeral in the thendling end
oering for these funds, One of the prinery obliga-~-
tions of a fiduciary i: to manege and preserve the nro-
perty which he Solds in trust.

In the languoge of o well-known euthority on
the law of trust: “is duty ia to manage the property
for his cestul que trust, and not to keep bis conscience,
or baa ci hie title or interests,.* 1 Parry on Trusta,
Sate . .

a trustee oannot be generous witu the proper
or funds placed in his asre. if there oxinta any question
as tO the tdebiiity of such funce under any obligation, .
he whould require thet euch obligation be proved up by
ae process of lew.

Xf the trustee fells ta i the creditor
to proceed ageinst the estate, no is lieble to the interest
e¢ parties who have been ured ea by his negligent scnduat.
The failure of the truztee thia respect subjects hin
to the same comequences at if he tted the estate
te be dfenipsted or lost in any other filegsl way or
any other l moans, 26 Ruifisg Case Law 2261,ee, 31;
Nuts ¥. Holan, 224 Penn. 262, 73 Atl. $55, 24 Lela. (0.5.)

A tiduelery is expected ant required to reise | .
every reasonable objection to and te interpose every legel _
defense ageinst, the payment of @ claim against the funis
entrusted to bis CAFC...

Sven in the case of an ordinary garnishee, if he
wishes to relieve Aimsel? of liability for the funds attesned
- ia his hands, he must act in ¢ od faith to the debtor, snd
by using the intoermation in his posscesion, contest every
ineh of ground to prevent e recovery of judguent by the at-
teaching craditer. Ceottish Hite, ote, sea'n wv. Union
Trast Co., 195 Fenn. &5, 46 ati. "51; Kutz ve folan, supra.

The aetblement of on socount Uy sa gouaty board
io no nore sacorec than « settlement. between indi is.
Ewen tioagh the payment of # claim sgsinet the county Is
 eolunterily sade, if it was paid without lewful eubnexitye
the anount no paid may be. sober t in ean section hy the
county, 11 Tex. TUT s 682 Oo. Zee eiso Cameron
County v. Fox (Cons. Appe$ | 2°58 S. 2 (2) 433.

-*%e Courts of thie “tate hove untifornly recog« |
Hizeé thet a Comeissioners* Court cannot bind the county by
orderines so claix te be paid whieh fa not made « charges
egalnst the county, or. make 9 contract net uithin the lintte
of thelr power. “he want of eutharity is Jurisdictional;
tts action in co doling sag no conclusive or binting effect,
but, on the contrary is vold." Yorard v. “eonderton County,

ah i tree £. 5 ee ar. ee
</div>

</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>. I . . 
</p>
<p>. </p>
<p></p>
<div class="ocr">Wr. Sowell - 5 3

In tae light of tre foregoing authorities, we are
eonrtrained to advige vou that the Commissioners* Court may
not pey the clain in question.

‘‘yuntines that we have sufflolently enswered your
inquiry, we are

Yours very truly
. . ATTONAEY CEMIRAL OF TEXAS

By /a/ Peter Naninceleo
Peter Kaniscaloo
. asalatant
APeTOVED SULY 22, 1942
{af Grover Sellers
PIRACY ATUL SOSANT
ATTORIEY GiikRAL

PR:BE: jrb

APPROVED OTXMION COMET METE
BY BYB, Chairmen
</div>

</div>
</body></html>