**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUOTIN**  Harch 16, 1939

Hon. Orville S. Carpenter ChairmanandExeoutlve Director Texas UnemploymentCompensationCommission Austin, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3S5 

### Gg0a unempr’p;-)
Tieare 20th in which has the authority ployment compensat the following circ
employment Comto the State namesof perndthe amounts of are entitled. The

warrants havebeen reperson other than the they are payable andhave been

such person not entitled thereto onthe forged indorsement of the payee. If such forgeries are discovered before the forged warrqnts are presented to the StateHon. Orville S. Carpenter, March 16, 1939, Page2

Treasurer, paymentis refused; where the for'gery is not aiscover8a until after payment has been madeby the Treasurer, .thewarrant is promptly returned to the lndorsers thereor. In anycase, paymentis either never made, or, if made, is always recovered. There seemsto be somequestion, 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 andlimitation of that power.

said section reads as follows:

“The Comptroller, whenSatisfied that any original warrant drawnupon the State Treasurer has been lost or destroyed, or whenany 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 nosuch 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, andthat the sameis in fact lost or destroyed, and shall also file with the Comptroller. his bond in double the amountof the claim with twoor more good andsufficient sureties, payable to the Governor, to be approved by the ComptrOller, anaconditioned that the applicant willHon. Orville S. Carpenter, Yarch 16, 1939, Page 3

hold the State harmless andreturn to the Comptroller, upon demandbeing madethereror , such duplicate6 or copies, or the amountof moneynamedtherein together with all costs that mayaccrue against the State on colleoting the same. dfter the issuance of said duplicate or copy if the Comptroller should ascertain that the semewasimproperly issued, or that the applicant or party to whomthe samewnsissued wasnot the ownerthereof, he shall at once demandthe return of said auplicat8 or copy if unpaid, or the amountpaid out by the State, if so paid; and, uponfailure of the party to return sameor the amountof moneycalled Ior, suit shall be instituted upon said bona in Travis County.” Thestatutes 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 awarrant is still in existence, andthe 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 remedyplaces uponhim. 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 anofficer upon the person having charge of the public funds, directing himt0 pay an amountof moneyspecified to the person named, or his order, or to bearer. In substance warrants are mere promises to pay the amountHon. 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 modeof conducting the public business." Theoriginal 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 4365prohibits the issuance of a duplicate warrant wherethe loss or I destruction of the original has not been called to the , attention andproven to the satisfaction of the Comp- [ troller in the mannerprovided in said statute. Trusting that this answers your ,inquiry, we are Yours very truly ATTORNEY

CEMGLOF TEXAS