THE NEY GENERAL 

TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

September 13, 1949 

Hon. C. H. Cavnesa 

State Auditor 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No-V-901 

Re: The duty of the Commlssioner of the General 

Land Office to collect 

accounts due that office 

Dear Sir: 

Your requeet for an opinion reads as follows: 

"In connection with our current audit 

of the account8 of the Qeneral Land Office 

we respectfully request that you refer to 

Attorney General's Opinion No, O-5332 (dated 

July 22nd, 1943) and advise us which Department or Offlbtal of,the State has the duty 

of taking action to recover to the State the 

remaining uncollected accounts due the Qenera1 Land Office - accounts such aa are 

described In that opinion, 

"Following the ruling of the above opfnion the Land Office ceased extending credit 

to all customers and required funds to be on 

deposit In the General Land Office or the 

State Treasury before services were rendered, 

etc. At that time there were uncollected 

accounts dub the Land Office as follows: 

"J. Ii, Walker 

Willfam Ii. McDonald 

Bascom Glles 

Total 

"Beglnnlng~.at that time collections were 

made on these accounts to the point where the 

entire amounts shown due by J. H. Walker and 

Bascom Glles have been satisfactorily accounted for, and a total of $69.25 was collected 

on the William H, McDonald accounts, This 
- 1 .- 

.-~ . _ 

Hon. C, H, Cavness - Page 2 (V-901) 

leaves a total balance due of $1,551.65 

on said McDonald accotznts. It ueems to 

us steps should be taken to collect this 

balance but of course it is out of our 

province, and your advice in the matter 

will be greatly apprecfated," 

We have discussed this letter with Rr, Grady 

Starnes of your Department, and, a8 we understand him, 

you are not inquiring as to whfch department 01" offfclal has the duty of inftiatlng legal actfon to collect 

the amounts due the State, but your questions are as 

follows~ 

1. Is it the duty of the Commfssioner of the 

General Land Office to make a written demand against the 

debtor for payment of delinquent sums due the State of 

Texas under Art, 3918, V,C.S.? 

2. If the above question Is answered fn the 

negative, then which head of department or State Offfcial has the duty of making demand? 

We answer your first question fn the afffrmative and hold that the Commissioner of the General Land 

Office has the duty of making demand for the payment of 

delfnquent accounts incurred under Art, 3918, V.C,S, 

Generally. the Caamnfssfon has onlr those oowers. 

duties, and respon~~bflfties conferred 

State v, Post, 169 S.W. 401 (Tex, Cfv, 

other grounds, 106 Tex.500, 171 

statute, given custody,and-control of all accounts in the 

General Land Office (AI%. 5262,v.c,s,) and the general control of the Land Office (Art. 5251, V.C,S.). He also has 

such implfed powers as ape necessary to the fulfillment 

of his express 46 C.J,1032, Officers,Sec.287; 

34 Tex. Jur. 44$~%cers, Sec. 68. 

We believe the makfng of a demand for payment 

of sums due the Land Office rests upon the Colnfssfoner 

by virtue of the above cited authority. 

In Attorney General$s Opinion V-791, dated 

March 24, 1949, It was held as follows: 
.c 

Hon. C. H. Cavness - Page 3 (V-9011, 

“It la the dwty of Land Commissioner 

to asoertaln when Interest Is due on dellnquent bonus, rentals and royalty and to 

make demand therefore ” (Emphaslls-) 

Attorney Qeneralts Opinion O-5332, date& July 22, 

1943, holds that the Commiasloner la without authority 

to extend credit In respect to fees required lay Art,3918, 

v,c.s. The opinion also says: 

“In your letter you Inquire upon wbem 

rests the reaponulblllty to collect accounts 

for ,the services of ~,the Commissioner In tiling 

documents and for certified copies, etc. under 

said Article 3918, Revised Civil Statutes. 

Since there la no authority on the part of 

the official to create such accounts, there 

Is no statutory provision with respect to the 

collection thereof. The official bond of the 

official protects the rights of the State to 

receive the fees provided for In said Artlcle 3918, ” 

We Interpret %he above quoted paragraph to hold that 

the Land Commlsaioner Is without statutory authority to 

Initiate legal action for collection; and It does not, 

therefore, conflict with our holding In the present opinion, 

The duty of making demand rests upon the present Coumissioner for Indebtedness created during the term of a 

predecessor. 46 C.J, 1035, Offfaers, Sec. 301 says: 

“As a general rule, dutlas lmposed~ by law 

on public officers are functions and a$trlbutes 

of the office; and they remain, although the incumbent dies or Is changed, and are to be performed by the Incumbent, although they MJ: 

have been left undone by the predecesror, 

See also 34 Tex, Jur. 449, Public Officers,SeC.~. 

Since the first question Is answered~~in the afflrmatlve, it will not be necessary to answer the second queltlon, 
Hon. C. P. Cavnea8 - Page 4 (V-901), 

SUEMARY 

The- Commlsalonsr of the General 

Land OffIce has the duty of makIng a 

demand against debtors for delfn uent 

accounts incurred under Art, 391 8 ', V.C.S. 

YourB VepJrfruly 

ATTORNEYGERRRALOF TEXAS 

,JW:bt 

APPROVED