R-515 

E i&lTOkEY GENERAL 

OF’ TEXAS 

I Bon, Lo A, Woodss State Superintendent 

Dspartanant of Education 

l Awtfn, Terra 

Att\Mtiafi: Ken, T, Y, Trimbls, 

Ffrst Assistant Opinion Non V-242 

., .~ 

. 

Dear Sir: 

Its: Artthorfty of 

City AttornOf 

to some ad 

trustee of f* 

dependent school 

district not IUU.W 

fclpally oontrollebp 

We refer to your letter of reosnt date acknowl- 

'edged by the Attorney General on may 26, 1947, wherein 

you request an opinion from this office on the following questfonf 

May the City Attorney serve at the same .' 

time as trustee of an independent sahool dfstrfct, wh%ah dfstrfot is not au.nloipully contr6llsPl 

Artiels XVIp Seotlon 40, Constitution of Texaas 

raade fsr parts 

*Ro psraon shall hold or exerctleee at the 

same time, more than one civil offfoe of emo$a~ 

,. almtd * o* 

Dual office holding is expressly forbidden by 

Sectfon 40, Atitfale XVX, of the Texas Constitution where 

both offfoes are ofvil offfoes of emolument, Dual offPoe 

holdi@ is forbidden to an extent at least by Section 33 

of Article XVI wherein the acaountfng officers of the State 

are forbid&I to issue of pay a warrant upon the Treasurer for the payment of salary or emlpensat fen to a cfvf 1 

'~ @ffPcer, who at the same time holds another offfee of 

&t&a&r, trust, or profit under the United States or the 

State of Texasa 
. Hon. L, A, Wooda 0 Page 2 

The oonstftutfonN pmhfbftfon against the 

holdfng of more than one offfee of emolument (Art. XVI, 

Seq, 4C) fs inapplicable to the questfon under consfderatfon for the-reason that sfnoe a trustee of an fndependent school dfstrfet serves wfthornt oompensatfon, his 

‘9s not en office of emolument, State VP Martin, 51 SOW, 

2dp 815; Attorney General Opinion O-3308, And sines neither a City Attorney nor a trustee of an independent 

sahool dfstrfat are offices to be paid out of the State 

Treasury, Seotfon 33 of Article XVI fs not violated un; 

der the facts submlttedd 

Hosver, ft is also a fundamental rule of law 

that one person may not hold at one time t%o offices, the 

duties of which are incompatible, and this princfple’applb# whether or not the office is named in the exoeptfona contained fn Article XPPp Section 40, Blenoourt 

t. Parker, 29 Tex, 558; State v. BrPnkerhoff, 66 Tex. 45; 

T-8 t0 Abernathy County Line Independent School Dfs3 trfot, 290 SOW0 152; Pnnett VP Olep Rose Independent 

Sehool Dfstrfot, 84 SoW1. 26 1004. 

. 

Thfe prfnofple of law, fnoompatfbflfty of offfoeao fe expreeaed clearly fn 22 R,C,L, 4P4$ par, 56; we 

7 

uote 

fyo) 

fma Knwkles v. Board of Education ,of Bell County 

114 sow, 2d 511, p* 514, ae foPlowsn 

*On8 of the most important testa as to 

whether offfo-es are fnoompatfble is found Pn 

the prfaefple that the fneompatfbflfty fs 

reaognfeeff whenever one fa subordinate to the 

other 4n aome of its fmportant and pr4ncfpl.e 

duties, or fs aubjeat to 8upePrfsfan by the: 

other, or where a contrariety and antagonism’ 

would result in the attempt by one person to 

diseharg8 the duties of both, Under thfs 

prfnofple two offfoes are incompatible where 

the fnewmbeot of me has the power to remove 

the frmmbent of the others though the aontl~anep on which the power may be exercsfsed ia . rcro to l Bd it also exists where the ino 

ownbent 08 OIW offfrre haa the power of appofntaunt as to the other office, D 0 0 or to audit 

the l oao@satb of another, or to exercise a superrlsfon Over another.n 

Wo heoe aonsfdersd the statutea relative to the 

rmpeetfva du%fer fntWnbent. upon a City Attorney and a 

trwto8 o? an fndependent senhool dfatriet which district I 
. 

Hon. L. A, Woods - Page 3 

is not municipally controlled but is governed exclusively 

by the laws appertaining to independent school districts.. 

in general S snd we aan oonoeive of no sound basis upon 

which it may be said tlat the offices are incompatible. 

We have been unsble to find any statute providing that 

either offfoe~ is accountable to, under the dominion of s 

or subordinate to ths othar, or which provides that ofther office has a right to interfere with the other in 

the performance of any official duty* War have we been 

apprised of any reason wh 

would be inconsistent or I 

the duties of a City Attorney 

n conflict with the duties of 

a trustee of an independent school district which is not 

municipally controlled, 

In Opinion 0-3906-A, this Department advised 

that it is the function of the county or district attorney to advise the school officials of independent school. ! 

district8 oonasrnfng the school laws and to handle their ” 

litigations in contested eleotioss, and that therefore 

the offioes of county attorney and trustee of an fndependent school district are incompatible. But this reasoning would not apply to a Cft y Attorney. ! 

It is our opinion, therefore, that the two offfaes in question are not incompatible s and that your submitted auestion should be, and is, answered in ths afffrmatfve, - 

0~s person *jr hold .at the same time both 

.~ t~he offfoes ‘of City Attorney and trustee of an 

fndependent sohool dfstrict whfah is not munfcfpally controlled,, the said offfoes being not incompatible d 

APPBPVED JuIa 10, 1947 

Very truly yours 

AlTOFUUY GWWWRAL OF TWXAS 

2i?LdiFa .,ur* 

ATThEY GXRltEUU Chester ,E. Ollfaon 

Asrfstaat 

.