. - 

Honorable O.C. Fisher 

District Attorney Dlstriat No. 51 

s8n Angelo, Texas 

- 

bar Slrr oplniorl No. O-4988 

Re: vypk auditor under Artiole 1646b. 

appointed by District 

J;&e'u& request of Gkand Jury ma: 

makeaudit ofcounty~a affaIrsand 

related matters. 

Y&r z&elit ‘ror 

.oon8Memdby this depaH+ent. T!i 

inion ha8 been received and wreStally 

e quote from your request hs follower 

* 'I 8m requesting an op*ou in referenoe to .'. 

the following 8ituatlona 

;- 'h Sarah, 1941 in pursuanoe of Artlale l@&a 

of tk8 Revised Civil Sktute~.of %caa a grand jury 

I 0r m.on county pcrs6ed a resolution o&rlng 8nd . 

dlhctlng th&t'an audit be made of t&e county fln&e~ ,.:' 

of IMon Oounty. 

*au as follousl 

Tbe'last paragreph of said resolution 

"%ierefon in accordmoe with thl8 report, request 18 made and it 1s here ordered 

. . that nuab audit be ma&e by some CexWfled Pub& 

Aacountaut to be named by your Honor, duly 

quallfled 40 make suab audit.' 

"The M&riot Judge iorthwltb appointed Jake Freeze, 

a certlfled public accountant of San Angelo, to make the 

audit. Hr. Freeze however, poetponed the uudertakins 

because he nas una610 to seoure e aatisiectory 8greement 

with the Comml8alonere' Court In reference to the pay that 

he would eventually receive for hla efforta. I (UD now 

requested tO’8eCUre an opinion from your Department a8 

to whether Hr. Freeze would be authorized to proceed at 

thie tlme In pursuance oi said a&ion of the &raid jWy 

and or the Metriot Jud@ and make the audit. I under8taTId that private altlzens of Irlon County have arranged 

to pay him, and have thereby eliminated the obstaale 

'which prevented him from prooeeding orWnal4. 1 

"This would seea to involve a construotlon of the 

above quoted.artlcle and pertalne to the QUkstiOn OfIthe 

elapse of time since the aotion of the gMurd jurS. 

ilnd no decleiona by the courta that throw ang light on 

H-us ewh *oat 
Honorable O.C. Fisher, Page 2 o-4988 

* II 

. . . . . . . 

fiion County, Texas, has a population of less than 25,000 

Inhabitants ticcording to the last pmcedipg Federal Census of 1940. 

Article 16&a, Vernon's Annotated Texas Clvll Statutes, prcvldee as follous: 

"County audltora. The Cormnlsslonere~ Court of 

any coun%y under twenty-five thousand PoIn&xtlon _ - aocor+ 

G to t& last United-States aeneua niay make an mangement or agmement with one or more other aountle8 whereby 

all aountlea, parties to the arrangement, may jointly 

employ and ovnsate a epeclal autitor or audltors for the 

purpose8 speciiled In Articles 1645 and 1646. The county 

commlealonersl court of every oounty afrected by thle 

article may have an audit made of all the books of the 

county, or any of them, at any time Way deelre whether 

suab amw&zement8 cm? be made with other counties or not; 

Construing the ebove quoted'atatute we held In opinion No. 

0-II37 of tble department that such statute authorized an audit of oounty 

.I' effaira and finsnoes In a county under 25,COC populetion upon an order of 

district judge or @and .Wy regardless OS whether or not such audit was 

dealred by tbe 6ou&aeioners1 court, 

herewlth ror yoke ,lnfonnation; 

A copy of thrs oph&on 1s enclosed 

The puree strings of the cowl;y zwe held by the conmhsloner: 

court and they ordinarily rtould pay for the servloee of a special auditor 

appointed under, Article 16&, supra. 

vides that the c;:m&Motiers' 

Ar&tIcle 1641, V.A.C.S., also prooourt may employ a special auditor and sets 

out a method of contracting with and compensating such auditor. .Houever, 

there may be r,Imes when the couunleeloners~ court may not desire the 

appointment of a special auditor because of either the expense lnvolvee 

or other reasons. The Legislature wisely prov'lded for an adult by a 

special auditor upon.the order of either the grand jury or district jo~g:. 

We do not here pars on the querrtlon as to nhether emeclal auditor could; 

recover Judgment agalnet the county for his BerViCbB on a quantum meruit 

basle where he brought suit on L: claim rejected by'the commissioners1 

court for malclng an audit of the fiscal affelre of the gounty ordered by 

'the grand jury OF district &dye under Article '1-a, supra, aa that 

question Is not asked ln your request. Nor do we pass on the legality of 

the special auditor recclvlr~ pay .from private oltizens for his audit 

as that question la not aakod In your request. 

It 18 our opinion that the orders of,the grand jury and 

district judge for the audit and'appointment of the auditor are.not lnval: 

for lapse of time assuming that such orders have not beet] revoke5 and arc' 

still outsta:ld!ing. IICWOVCI', as u practical matter, the special auditor 

could become fortlfled in hire posItion if he could seoure a new and fresh 

order from tnc district judge calling for the audit. 
. - 

Honczable O.C. Pieher, Page 3 o-4988 

Trusting that this matlafactorlly anmrem 

Very truly yours 

ATWHWEX QBNBRAL OF 

- JAN 9, 1945 

8/ Qerald c. Nann 

AlTOHNW~OFTEXAS 

+pprovedOpit+onCaaaitteegt sAWCh8irman 

.