OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUOTIN 

Harch 16, 1939 

Hon. Orville S. Carpenter 

Chairman and Exeoutlve Director 

Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. O-3S5 

Gg0a unempr’p;- ) 

Tie are 

20th in which 

has the authority 

ployment compensat 

the following circ 

employment Comto the State 

names of pernd the amounts of 

are entitled. The 

warrants have been reperson other than the 

they are payable and have been 

such person not entitled thereto on the forged indorsement of the 

payee. 

If such forgeries are discovered before 

the forged warrqnts are presented to the State 
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter, March 16, 1939, Page 2 

Treasurer, payment is refused; where the 

for'gery is not aiscover8a until after payment 

has been made by the Treasurer, .the warrant 

is promptly returned to the lndorsers thereor. In any case, payment is either never 

made, or, if made, is always recovered. 

There seems to be some question, however, 

as to the authority of the State Comptroller 

to issue to the proper payee a duplicate of 

such forged warrant. 

us, therefore, 

Will you please aavise 

if the State Comptroller is 

authorized to issue duplicates of such forged 

warrants? 

The Comptroller of Public Accounts of the 

State of Texas must look to the written law of the 

state for his authority to issue duplicate warrants. 

His power is circumscribed by statute. drticle 4365, 

R.C.S. of Texas, 1925, defines the extent and limitation of that power. 

said section reads as follows: 

“The Comptroller, when Satisfied that any 

original warrant drawn upon the State Treasurer has been lost or destroyed, or when any 

certificate or other evidence of indebtedness 

approved by the auditing board of the State 

has been lost is authorizea to issue a duplicate warrant in lieu of the original warrant 

or a duplicate or a copy of such certificate, 

or other evidence of indebtedness in lieu of 

such original; but no such duplicate warrant, 

or other evidence of indebtedness, shall issue until the applicant has filed with the 

Comptroller his affidavit, stating that he is 

the true owner of such instrument, and that 

the same is in fact lost or destroyed, and 

shall also file with the Comptroller. his bond 

in double the amount of the claim with two or 

more good and sufficient sureties, payable to 

the Governor, to be approved by the ComptrOller, ana conditioned that the applicant will 
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter, Yarch 16, 1939, Page 3 

hold the State harmless and return to the 

Comptroller, upon demand being made thereror , 

such duplicate6 or copies, or the amount of 

money named therein together with all costs 

that may accrue against the State on colleoting the same. dfter the issuance of said 

duplicate or copy if the Comptroller should 

ascertain that the seme was improperly issued, 

or that the applicant or party to whom the 

same wns issued was not the owner thereof, he 

shall at once demand the return of said auplicat8 or copy if unpaid, or the amount paid out 

by the State, if so paid; and, upon failure 

of the party to return same or the amount of 

money called I or, suit shall be instituted 

upon said bona in Travis County.” 

The statutes of the state are silent upon the 

authority of the Comptroller to issue duplicate warrants except in the express instance of loss or destruc- 

. tion. Consequently, where a warrant is still in existence, and the procedure outlined in the above quoted 

article, including filing of applicant’s bona, has not 

been followed,’ the Comptroller has no authority to’ issue a duplicate. 

Yðer the forged warrant has been paid by the 

State Treasurer or not, the rightful 

P 

ayee has no claim 

upon the State Comptroller for a dupl cate in the absenoe of proof that the original instrument has been 

.lost or destroyed. RI6 only redress is against the 

wrongdoers guilty of the forgery regardless of the haraship this form of remedy places upon him. 

According to 34 T8X. SW. p. 636: 

“d state, municipal, county, district or 

school warrant is an instrument, generally in 

the form of a bill of exchange or Order, drawn 

. by an officer upon the person having charge 

of the public funds, directing him t0 pay an 

amount of money specified to the person named, 

or his order, or to bearer. In substance warrants are mere promises to pay the amount 
Hon. Orville S. Carpenter, Karch 16, 1939, fage 4 

specifiecl; they are not bonds, nor are they 

negotiable instruments* they are only prima 

facie evidencea of an &.iebtedness, serving 

as a convenient mode of conducting the public 

business." 

The original payee remains the rightful owner 

of the warrant and is legally entitled to recover it 

from the possessor despite successive indorsements. 

It is our opinion that Article 4365 prohibits 

the issuance of a duplicate warrant where the loss or 

destruction of the original has not been called to the , I 

attention and proven to the satisfaction of the Comp- [ 

troller in the manner provided in said statute. 

Trusting that this answers your ,inquiry, we 

are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY CEMGLOF TEXAS