. . 

c 

/ 

.- 

,’ :, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xr. 'h il. Bryan, Jr. 

Crlmlnal Metriot Attorney 

Hill county 

Killsboro, Texa8 '. 

Deqr Sirr 

ing question: 

*Is a woman 

has been mo 

d CIVIL. Statutes of Texar, 

br~;!z in-the order In wbioh they are roeisArtlole 1626, Revieed Civil Strrtutea Of TaXas, 

provlCas ae follows! 

TXnlms against a oonnty aball be reelstered in three olesseo, as follow88 

_ 
, 

Xr. A. S. Bryan, Jr., L!aroh 7, 1939, Page 2 

‘1. All Jury sorlpt and sorlpt Issued *- 

ror ieeblna jurore. 

“2. All soript Isoued under the prOPIdona oi tha road law or ror work done on 

roads and bridgea. 

“3. All the canoral indebtedness or the 

oounty, Inoludlng faadl~g and euardIng QriEiOnars, and paupore’ olaims.W 

Artlola 1627, Ravlscd Clvll Statutes of Texas, 

roads as followsr 

“Said treasurer shall antor aaoh ola5.m 

In the ra&Her, stating tha olass to wh$oh 

It belongs, the naaa of the payoo, the amount, 

tha date of the olalm, tho date of reglstratlon, 

the nunbar oi suoh olalm, by what authority lssuad, and for what aarvloe the ~$8 vas issued, 

end shell mite on tho face oi the olalm It8 

re&3tratlon nunY0r, qe 9?ord *regietraba' , 

the dnte of suoh ro2istretlon, and shall sign 

his nsma ofiIolally thereto.* 

Clakka k Courts vs. San JaoInt0, 46 SIV 315, 

held that warrants bn Gotieral Fund should be paid In order aooording to their raspaotioe registered nunbars. 

In the case of G%lta VS. Calaway (Tax. Clv. 

- 

.-- 

App;.) 202 S5; 642, volt rqfused, appollant G’hIto brought 

“’ “-“suit against certain ofriders or Kontagua oounty seeking 

a writ of mandamus oompellln~ thorn to *~Ia~edIataly pay* 

to applicant a oartaln j~a~~at ln his favor against 

XontaEua county, in tho sum 0r 2500.00, with Interest 

8r.d oost.m The lowar Court rofusod applicant the PolIaf 

sou?bt end he aqealed. Judge Connor of the Fort Earth 

Court of Civil Appeals in paasInS upon sala oasa, after 

quoting rrom other authorltlas, said: 

“The s‘tatament there maa0 (Kaufcen County . 

YB. Caatoa (TOG Civ. Apg.) 273 SW 273) 1s 

supportod by authorltlas, and WQ think thore 

con be ao doubt undar~ the olroumtanoos oi this 

case but that tho appellant was entitled to have 

the oor&ssionare* Court ciroot the olark to 

issue R warrant for the payncnt of his olaim. 

That olaim oonsistod Up the judpont, Its 

intorest, and ooeta,aajudfed In his raYore 

Upon this lsouenoa of the warl’ant and Its presentation to the traaaurer. tho aaaellant was 
, 

Er. A. J. ,&pan, Jr., Xaroh 7, 1939, Pe5s 3 

entith.d to have the rarrant reglstored an4 

h .ve the same pal4 in tha or4ar in nhloh it 

VCOE registered, as provide4 by artiole 1625 

above . SOO Clarke k Courts VS. San Jaolnto 

County, 45 Si'i 315, 18 Tex. Clv. App. 204. 

Tho rlrht to seoura suoh paymnt is not affeotod, we think, by the taot pleaded In do- ’ 

form and upon evldenoe In behalf of appellee 

qounty that there v:as not auffiolont money 

In the eeneral iund.oS the county to pay the 

debt an4 to neet other neoossarv runnlmz expodses ol the oounty.* Un401woo4 vs. Howard 

(Ter. Clv. App.) 1 SJ (24) 730. 

The oase .oi y~ilklnson vs* Franklin County et al, 

94 SY (2nd’). 1190, hold thst an order of the C~mlssloners~ 

Court requlrinp, the county treasurer to pay ourrent warrnnts drown against the oounty Goneral yund in proferenoe 

to xarrqnts of prior years drawn against General Bun4 was 

void, SO that warrants issued Qurin5 prior year whioh 

bcre preferential ro5lstratAcn numbers to ourront year 

w&rrantE were payable out of General Fun4 for ourront year 

in preference to current Soar warrants. 

Thoreiore, you .ore respeotfully advise4 that It 

1s the opinion 01 this Depsrtment that hrtlole 1625 ot the 

Zeviaed Civil Statutes of Texas olearly denotes the order 

in nhioh warrants drawn against the oounty treoaury are 

to be paid, an4 mounts to an approprlatloa of the run40 ‘- 

_, ,,_ _,_ .._ -.ln the oounty treasury to the paynant of all V:arraats 

legally drown acalnot tho several olasses o1c iunds in the 

ardor 05 their registration. 

You are respeottully advised that lt is the 

oplnlon of this Copartment that a warrant dram on an overdram General Lund and payable to the Offloors~ Salary 

I’und la not ontltled to be pal4 frm the first noney paid 

into tho General Fund. It is the further opinion of this 

Separtnent that such warrant should be paid aooor4lng t0 

ito amber and registration as povided in Artlole 162s of 

the Ravlsed Civil Statute6 of TOXOS~ 
. 

Mr. A. J. Bryan, Jr., hroh 7, 1939, Page 4 

Trusting that the Soregolng answsra your inquiry, we renaln. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GiZ!ERAL 6; TEXiS 

Assistant 

WJF:AW 

APPROVED 8 

. 

I 

, 

t 

.