OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

142 
Honorable V. EL Coar, Fags 2 

You further state in your letter of September 12, 

.h, that %n the 11th day ot September, 1939, the Con&sBiOLWC8' court passed an ocdsr whereby it xas QUthor&ed to 

UrplOO a lawpsr to represwt the three preoinota in Blanao 

OoWItf in the above mentioned law sPit to be peld out of 

uowlty mand8.” The question you ask 1~ as foll~war 

"18 thu County authorized to employ counsel fn a '/ 

ease of this Mn4.snd pap his .res out of County ms7y:. 

Cur answer to yOur queatIon is that the Com&&onsrs* 

COPrt Of Blanoo County is authorized to employ oounsel ln a easa 

Of-this kLn6 to represent the Comm5.esionersV Court nnd to pay 

htef~ 00t 0f 00unty fya6. 

In the cam of City Natlonel Dank of Austin v. Primltlio 

uounty, sa s. %. 775, it nap held t&at the Cdssioners* Court 

vn8 adhorizea to hire oouhsel to represent the CommSs&ouers* 

@art %n a suit ahioh was brought against the County 3udge amI 

th* Oonnissloners to enjofn alleged i&legal aotlon of the Wm.im- 

~d01~0r8* t-art ~IXXVMIOYSO~; tb 00utf'aSat 0r PXWJ~MO c0wy 

ft0aFort Davis to Nanga. The court held that while t&a suit 

mS 0tinal.l~ against the defetiante as individuals, it was 

d@rigPQ to oontrol the performanoe oi their offioial sots, and 

.awerore wa8 a matbsr. of oonpem to the oounty. 

tibnths oourt sa1d.r 

In thls~oonneoWhile it was nominally a ault against them as indlviduals, lte'design and effeot maa to obstruot aad 

oontrol the prr0rrrmnoa 0r their oAY'ilcia1 acts,~ and 

we are not disposed to hold In suoh a oaae t&t they 

muat 30 nothiry5 toward6 defendin+; such stilt, or must 

miploy connael. at .t&Lr i)~in expense. They had power 

.,to employ oounael,~and.~o defray the reasonable 

orpenm thereof out of the county x32nd8.~ 

The court also held that the right to employ OouMel 

us not dependent upon whether the order Or the Cok!&stiOners' 

Court uhiC!i was under attnok was valid or invalid. On thl.6 point 

the oourt suid: 

"The validity of their acts was not afl‘eoted by the 

faot tbnt they were dot8ken. or thhf there was an 

adveree de&slon of the question. It baas beon frequently herd thet the poaar cannot be measured by 'auoh 

a rule.W 

The disposition 0f that partion Of the Count3 rOad and 

bfidge fund oon&stin(S of automobile Ee&Stration fees iS 00ntrolled by &tiole fit375a&Cor the kevisvd Civii Stat\ltes, and is 
144 

Eoaorabls v. B. war, Page a 

a~ttel~mbiohlio~withfntb jurldiotlon #the 

& UhtribWifoA of the autmobl1.o rq#atratLon f&8 

bmio~. to the oouaty road md bii@e fund is a hatter ot 

~OM@TD to the aty. Tha suit in'tha Dirtriot C6urt tr a 

muitl to rr8traiA tb OouAt Ju4Jp end ths oosmlssloAerr in thm 

pmforran~ofthdr ofrio I al Urrtioa. Wearm thenfonoftk 

opbdon that the Ommieolo~~?8* Omit has thm autborit~to hk-8 

ooum8el to PeprmmAt the OawAls~iomrr' ootut In thm malt nfomd 

tclryour latter. It I~wallnttledthatths ooankniaaord 

ooh~tohava.thmpouer toUroaortnacb]:to nprwent theoouaty 

trr .aatten that ainotly aoaoara the @@aaty busixwm. Maam vr 

8O*grt, m 'M. 888, 860 81 Wq bl8t 86&=8tOA' @Ilit 1. -@Wh6A, 

880 6. W. SSO0)Ct~bma va Dads, SS6 SC We 8088 Wuan-Warpea Yublbhii= a. Vc 8UwA &AAtf, 48 8. w. (86) 6% 

ml80 the ~&ullJ io agab tin Qaraiod.oAmr** omxro, 

l WEd%4'to tb tie@ltiOABiAtb ~tiOA,td#inoOtb 

&pow of tha ault ,&a to rt an&do or mvlao am opde~ of the 

~8dOAOd mt @tOtilt& iA. it8 CbfiOial OaPflatty, NO d0 AOt 

klievo that the raot that oaly thrme nmmbmra dr the ctxmdeaioaer~~ 

Court are aado doimldaat8 wauld affaot the right of tlNOoaf&e8iolmr8'GourttoeaQlg8poeial oowmoltoreprooenttbeC~* 

aloaord court.~ the eontraotofaaplo~nt howevervmlbhave to 

be a ooatnot to rcrp~AOAt tho 0nmniaelon4srs* court arrl not a 

oontraot to represent the three preoinota whose oomieeionerr 82yt 

namd as deetendants; othervdee,,rrs do not believe that thrrre would 

bm any lawful autborlty to,oxpenfl Funty funds iOr the hiring Of 

Thor attorney. 

Very truly your0 

AT&WI& aEfmzAL OF T'lexAs