725 

OFFICEOF'T'HEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable C. 3. Pllde 

county Auditor 

lIwso* county 

corpllr Chrl~tl, Tesaa 

mar arr 

Init our oplnloo upon ttrr ab 

, 

ding In said oourt Is a gaerdlanshlp 

OS the oh~ildren.of suoh Qeaearrrd person. 'Bxe 

gtartllan In this case 18 .tho same ao the &mlaistrator in tbs abwe aaee. &loneJr 80. baa4 in the 

admlalstratloa 1s trawterrod to the gmrdlaaahlp. 

Th8 grraraimship al80 ha8 addItIonal laaoiw derlrd 

from laterest~ on note8 aad other obllgatloam. -. 
. ItW?.rable 0. J. Wilda, page 8 

., ,' 

*Al there ara twb eeparate and dlatlwt 

.oaasa peadlag before the uourt, should the aommlsrrloa be obarged on the indome of both emtatsa, or ahould ths total inaomo of the a&- 

ainlatratlon and only tho addMloaa1 lnotme, 

(other than anrounta traaalerrsd from ths administration to the gusrdianahip) be collectad 

la the gu6rdlawhlp9 

'"The last olauae of the above qu,ucrtaa atatate ham been oonatrwd by the oountf elsrk's 

ofdas am nmaaiag that where noaey ia Internted, 

oolleateb and rs-lnrsatrd, that' the oommleaioa 

is only bhargsabla aglnat tha lntara8t raosirqd enb not against tho ~~lnolpal. ,oolleotod.w 

The atIm%nlatrator and. tha guardian rebwred to 

in your httw are sequitied to praunt to the probate oourt 

in 6a exhibit of aodounting umler oatll, all mums in oaah 

derirad from 8ale8, ;aollwtfow and llko l ~ur o ea la . due ouw$e 

of adalnlatntiea, 

The piebati Judge la rsqulrml to examine an4 apprws all auah s@.lbita OS acoountlng when duly praamated to 

him by auah adninlrtmtor aad guardian. 

: Artlola 9W?S, Vwmn*a Amhated Clril Statute@, 

reada in part as $esllci~~~ 

a *ma county judge ahall also reoslve tha 

rou.ming sum: 

; ,':, 1; 

,. 

"1. .A, 005nlrsloa of oae-half of ona per 

oeat wpowthe aot\ial oiqh raaelpta of l aoh 

sxeoutor, admlni#fQator or gcrardieo, upon the 

agproval @r the~w5lbitr and tha rlnal settlamsnt of'ths'aobtint of au08 exaaator, admlnlatrator or gu~rdla~~ but aa?moro than oae auah 

oomiaslon shall,be ahargsd on any amuat recsivad by any such sxemtor, 6ilmlnlatrator or 

guardian. 

ì* . l w ,: 

ma aboys' Quatad aot alsarly baa la viei! the prs1 riding or o~mpenmgtfon of the probate 

oontm1.M ~atetsm.baaa8 oa the -aatua dr 

udgo for him d'ffalal 

aaah reaolPtaw at 

&ah sxeoutor, at2&lnlatrator or guardian as the cram@ J&&t be, 
Eonorable C. a. Wilde, Page 3 

ahown by the exhibits end t&e final ssitlament of tte 5ccouAt 

of eueh exeautor, administrator or gwrdiaa. mAatual cash 

reeeipta* apecitlcafly deaoribe money reoalvsd by the exsautar, administrator or guardian, othsr than oaah of the eStCit8 

wNoh warn on hand ahen :.he tostator died. Willls V. Xervey, 

26 S. X. (26) 288. 

The Supreme Court of Texas adopted the judgment of 

the Commiasloa or Aspeal. In the case of Cioodwln v. Downs, 

280 5. Hr. 512, wherein it worn held that the county judge is 

entitled to a oomuisa:on UTOA noney received by n persons1 

reprsseatotlva IA the fulflllzent of a rend cbnatruotlon 

aontrect of ths a4c5344u, evsn thou& most of the izoaeywas 

dlabureeU by the represeatstive. Xe quote from thd Goodwin 

ease, m-, 85 f ollowa t 

The county judge has only oAe way to rseeive any coapensetlon for hla supervision ol an 

a&!linlatratloA. Rim raaponeibilfty is great. 

He must study the reports and approve the aaaounte, inolutinij receipts and ~isbursementa. 

The Legislature fixed thla detlnlte aethod of 

oomputing his fees. It will not be assumed that 

the Le&slature 1nteAded to do an unreasonable 

or absurd thing. But we sne no reason to amend 

or llnlt.thls artlole upon elther of suah hypothea8a. There Is not&lag IA the history of this 

act (the court Is speaking of &tlole 3860, 

sievlaed Civil Statutes, 1911, whlUh is AW' 

Artlole 3926, Vern@nra Annotated Civil St4tUt45) 

which shows that the Leglslaturo had any axoeptAOA in mind. . . . 

R Y.0 see no reason for not allowing 

the coi~iy'judge what the etatute lo alear and 

ucmletakeable language gives him. We do not. 

belleva it la in any wise uAreaaonablera 

A150, 49s i-on tioennerlta v. Ziller, 245 S. vi. 423; 

Grioe v. Cooley, 179 S. Vi. 1098; Lylea v. Ohelm, 142 S. i'i. (2d) 

95%. 

The zusre fact that the admiAi5tIwtOr in the one 

o&88 referred to by you IA :r?ur letter Is the @.erdiaA in 

the second ease reierred to doea mt alter the fnOt that these 

are cm, sepparete and distinct mesa pending barore 'the court, 

the sdnniulstrstion of each of whloh requires the supervision 
Honorable C. J. FiUdr, ?a@~ 4 

of the county ju%e. Aa pointed out in the GoedwIn uase, 

supra, the Legislature, in crmstlng said Artiols 3966, nrada 

no eroeption to the dsfinitr cmthod of oOmput%+q the IsO8 

0r the 00unty judge for hlr eupervieion or an ~Wniairtration. 

Thereiore, you are reqeottully advised that It 

if3 thr opinion of thl8 department, in amwar to your que8- 

ttofi, that the oounty judge is entitled to hia cmnuni~slon on 

the lnoome of both sstatel. 

musting thst tha foregoIng anawmr6 your inquiry, 

we relrlaia 

Yours very truly 

ATTom-a csxmAL OF TEXAS 

D. Burl0 Davim 

Amirtust