0 EXAS 

Mr. Henry Wade, Opinion No. WW-430. 

District Attorney, 

Dallas 2, Texas Re: Authority of Commissioners' 

Court to enter order on 

recommendation of auditor 

for method of paying food 

vendors for food supplies 

furnished Indigent citizens, 

and authority of county 

treasurer to refuse to apDear Sir: prove warrants issued therefor. 

You have submitted for our consideration certain 

questions concerning the following proposed procedure for 

processing food orders issued by the City-County Welfare 

Department of Dallas County. Payment of these orders is made 

by the Commissioners' Court and your questions concern the 

accounting procedures involved in this proposed method of 

payment. 

The following is a statement of the transactions 

which take place in this procedure: 

Food orders for Indigent persons under the jurisdiction of the Welfare Department are prepared in triplicate 

from case records on file at the City-County Department of 

Public Welfare. A voucher payable to the City-County Welfare 

Department fs then prepared for the total amount of food orders written for a particular period. This voucher, supported 

by the duplicate copies of the orders written, is then sent to 

the County Auditor's Office for pre-auditing. Upon completion 

of pre-audit procedure by the County Auditor's office, the 

voucher is put upon the appropriate court minutes and sent to 

the Commissioners' Court for approval. 

After approval by the Commissioners' Court a General 

Fund warrant In payment of the voucher is prepared by the 

County Clerk. The warrant is then returned to the County 

Auditor, where it is checked for correctness of payee. After 

this audit, the warrant 1s signed by the County Auditor and 

Is forwarded to the County Clerk for his signature. After 

the signature of the County Clerk, the warrant then goes to 

the County Treasurer for his signature and registration. 
. 

Mr. Henry Wade, Page 2 (WW-430). 

The completed warrant is then sent by the County Treasurer to the City-County Welfare Department where it is deposited 

by that office in a bank account established in the Mercantile 

National Bank, for the payment of food orders. It Is only after 

this warrant has been deposited that the original food orders are 

mailed out to the welfare recipients. These recipients then take 

the orders to food suppliers of their choice, who fill the orders 

to the stipulated value of the order after the recipient has 

placed his signature on the face of the order. The food supplier 

then places his name and address on the face of the order. After 

this is done the food order.becomes a draft payable at the Mercantile National Bank out of the account established by the deposit 

of the General Fund warrant Issued by the Commissioners1 Court. 

The only further action taken In the payment of these 

claims Is by the Welfare Department and Dallas County In reconciling the bank account through which the food order drafts have 

been cleared. Of course, the County Auditor post-audits the 

records of the City-County Welfare Department each year. 

On December 30, 1957, the Commissioners1 Court of 

Dallas County duly enacted an order which would authorize the 

above procedure. Subsequently, the bounty Treasurer of Dallas 

County refused to register and approve the warrant drawn by 

the County Clerk payable to the City-County Department of Public Welfare. This refusal was on the basis that the procedure 

did not comply with Articles 1627 and iTlO, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, and for the further reason that it would delegate 

the duties and responsibilities o f the County Treasurer to the 

City-County Department of Public Welfare. The Treasurer in 

his statement of refusal to the Commissioners' Court requested 

that the order of December 30, 1957 be revoked until the legality of the proposed procedure could be determined. 

The questions you present for our consideration are: 

"1 . Is the proposed method of paying food 

vendors for food supplies furnished indigept citizens 

of Dallas County, Texas, legal? 

"2. In the event the answer to Question 

No. 1 is in the affirmative, can the County Auditor, 

by mandamus action, compel the County Treasurer to 

approve and register Warrant No. 12,923 payable to 

the City-County Department of Public Welfare?" 

The general duties of the County Treasurer with regard 

to the payment, registration and approval of warrants are set 

out in the following statutes. 
Mr. Henry Wade, Page 3 (WW-430). 

Article 2554, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides In 

part as follows: 

"It shall be the duty of the county 

treasurer upon the presentation to him of any 

warrant, check, voucher, or order drawn by the 

proper authority, If there be funds sufficient 

for the payment thereof on deposit in the account against which such warrant is drawn, to 

endorse upon the face of such instrument his 

order to pay the same to the payee named therein and to charge the same on his books to the 

fund upon which it Is drawn. . . . All checks 

or warrants issued or drawn by any officer 

under the provisions of this Act, shall be 

subject to all the laws and regulations providing for auditing and countersigning and 

all such laws and regulations are hereby continued in full force and effect." 

Article 1627, V. C. S., provides: 

"Said treasurer shall enter each 

claim in the register, stating the class to 

which it belongs, the name of the payee, the 

amount, the date of the claim, the date of 

registration, the number of such claim, by 

what authority Issued, and for what service 

the same was Issued, and shall write on the 

face of the claim its registration number, 

the word, 'registered,' the date of such 

registration, and shall sign his name officially thereto." 

Article 1709, V.C.S., provides: 

"The county treasurer shall receive 

all moneys belonging to the county from whatever source they may be derived, and pay and 

apply the same as required by law, in such 

manner as the commissioners court of his county 

may require and direct." 

Article 1710, V.C.S., provides: 

"The county treasurer shall keep a 

true account of the receipts and expenditures 

of all moneys whlch,shall come Into his hands 

by virtue of his office, and of the debts due 

to and from his county; and direct prosecutions 

according to law for the recovery of all debts 

that may be due his county, and superintend the 

collection thereof." 
- ., 

Mr. Henry Wade, page 4 (WW-430). 

Article 1713, V.C.S., provides: 

"The county treasurer shall not pay any 

money out of the county treasury except in pursuance of a certificate or warrant from some officer 

authorized by law to issue the same; and, if such 

treasurer shall have any doubt of the legality or 

propriety of any order, decree, certificate or 

warrant presented to him for payment, he shall 

not pay the same, but shall make report thereof 

to the commissioners court for their consideration and direction." 

It is under the termsof Article 1713, supra, that 

the County Treasurer of Dallas County has refused to register 

and approve the warrant in question. 

Under the provisions of Article 2351, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, the Commissioners 1 Court of Dallas County has the 

power and duty to support and provide for paupers who are residents of their county and who are unable to support themselves. 

As a general rule of law, the Commisslonerst Court rather than 

the Treasurer of the County Is the guardian of the County Funds. 

Hurley v. Buchanan, 233 S.W. 590 (Tex. Clv. App. 1921, error 

dlsm.). As such guardian It has a great latitude of discretion 

in the management of the county finances to effectuate its 

granted powers. As w,as stated In the case of Davis v. Burney, 

58 Tex. 364 (1883): 

"From the very nature of the case the 

commissioners court must have considerable dlscretlon In its management of county finance as 

to when and how the county Indebtedness Is to be 

paid and in providing the means for payment. In 

such matters It would be Impracticable for the 

legislature to descend Into the particulars, and 

undertake to confer express powers upon the court 

In the management of such a complicated matter 

in every minute detail. All that was Intended 

by or could have been expected of the leglslature 

In this regard, would be to confer upon the court 

such general powers by express legislation, as, 

when supplemented by such as will be necessarily 

implied, will attain the purposes of county government, and secure Its efficient and economical admlnlstratlon." 
Mr. Henry Wade, Page 5 (WW-430). 

As we have stated, the County Auditor of Dallas County 

has suggested this accounting and disbursement system. We are 

of the opinion that the above quoted authorities imply that the 

Commlssloners~ Court shall have the power to make disbursements 

in a manner designed to effectively carry out Its specific powers. 

The method of disbursement described in your opinion request 

seems to be an efficient, economical, and well controlled method 

of disbursing the many small welfare checks which Dallas County 

Is required to handle. Further, we are unable to see that this 

accounting and disbursing procedure infringes upon any of the 

duties or responsibilities of the County Treasurer of Dallas 

County. 

We think It clear that it is the County Treasurer's 

duty to pay and apply the funds of the County as required by 

law in the manner and by the method directed and required by 

the Commissioners' Court of the County. Article 1709, V. C. S., 

supra. However, the &reasurer does have some discretion as to 

the payment of the warrants submitted by the CommissIonersI 

Court. If he has doubts as to the validity or legality of the 

warrants, he Is not to pay the same, but is to report his objection to the Commlsslonerst Court in accordance with Article 

1713, Vernon's Civil Statutes. The Treasurer's llabllity in 

this situation is clearly set out In the case of McDonald v. 

Farmer, 56 S.W. 555 (Tex. Civ. App., 1900), wherein the Court 

stated: 

"When the treasurer has no reason to doubt 

the legality or the propriety of a warrant presented 

to him for payment, it Is his duty to pay it; and, 

having paid it In the discharge of his duty, he ought 

not to be held liable to the fund out of which It has 

been paid. He must, however, act in good faith, :and 

exercise care and prudence to make no payment for which 

the County or School District should not be heid liable. 

. . . Whether or not he should be protectedin the 

payment would be a fact to be determined by his care 

and good faith. He should take care to see that the 

warrant had been drawn by the proper authority, and 

in accordance with law. He cannot have credit for a 

warrant Issued for an Illegal claim, if he has reason 

to believe that the demand for which it was issued 

was in fact illegal." 

Having concluded, therefore, that the general control 

and management of county finances rests in the Commissioners' 

Court, and having further concluded that the accounting procedure above described does not amount to a delegation of the 

functions of the County Treasurer under Articles 1710 and 1627, 
Mr. Henry Wade, Page 6 (WW-430). 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, It is our opinion and you are so advised 

that the above described system of disbursement of the funds of 

Dallas County is valid and In conformity with the statutes of 

the State of Texas. 

In view of our answer to your first question, we presume that the County Treasurer of Dallas County will carry out 

his functions as County Treasurer In processing and paying the 

warrant Issued by the County Clerk to begin this disbursing 

procedure. Accordingly, we deem it unnecessary to answer your 

second question concerning whether mandamus would Iie against 

the Treasurer to require his approval of the warrants issued 

by the County Clerk. 

SuMMaRY 

The stated proposed system of making 

disbursements by the Commissioners' 

Court of Dallas County of welfare 

payments through an Impressed bank 

account Is a valid means of payment 

of such obligations of the county. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

JHM:wb:pf 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Jack Goodman 

J. Mark McLaughlin 

J. ~Arthur Sandlln 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

B$: W. V. Geppert.