OFFICR OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

11 

Honorable H. C. Neavss 

county hudltor, wayaon county 

ghoraan, Tsxar 

Dear Sir: 

We aoknowledgs r60 

ia part, M r0liw8: 

letter, nhloh reada, 

rtalnlng to the above qwrtlonz 

"'TO ALL COUNTY TAX lessors-COtiTORS 

"'SUBJECT: DIeposition or the 254 oollsoted rrom 

Agent for Certlrioata or Tltls and Retained by the 

Aseesaors-Colleotore or Taxes a8 Designated Agent. 
1 

E&orable B-. Gr‘l&vaa, page 2 

-, 

3 
HOnorable R, C; Heaves, pwe 5 

have deposl$ed this fund. Disbgrsem4nts may be 

Blade iTom thin fUyl by $‘ou’ior,~the pWpo80 et pqing expense8 neoaa~aary to erriaientiy pei-forcthe 

butler required br you in tbg t%rt$tioate o? Title 

Aat. 

%%I reallw that fin a numbaX Of.#IJMll~OOUU~i48 

there ls$ot aufiiaient title business$s~ra;t 

the employment of a full-tM8 olerk. 

staXtO88, it f8 8%&48t4d that; th4 Olerk assi@.Md 

these dut.248 be pafd prOp0rtiOnately on a part-time 

basin rron title k~iae awl,the remainder of the sal- 

'arp be paid out ~oi other if308 0r four ,0rrw4. 

w!Wu raqueet that an aaourato record be maln$alned: 

by you of all moei+ #nd &i~bur~em@nte Uider th8 

Sert5rioat.e of Tit&o Bill. En this oonneQtlo9. we 

re~qqtmt that roti etalntain 'reOoXd6 Of diebux8emnt* 

UAd8x the ~0110wSn~ aoooiintsr 

i 
Honorable R. C. Neaves, page 4 

/ 

exaeed 'the retained amoulits actually 08 deposit. 

*c'Phe balanoes on hand at tha:end 41 eaaja quarter 

msy b&retained until iaHhef,nirtide. At the present time, it is our lstentipn to olose such aooounts 

on Deaember 51 ofaaob year, wlththe bal.anoe 61% hand 

at that time to b9 reportad and transal.tted to the 

.State rtk@rap PepeZtment .?or NptUttt to the State Highway lM4&. 

"cT~~Depart08it requests that @.l ~deptltfee employed by god handUn& Certifioates of Title be bonded 

.ancthatthe bonapm4iuatlbe paid feo*thlsfund,the 

bond8 beln$ r0tdn8a & y&u- QO6SW$diC+O.' ** ** 
~Bonor~ble H. 4. Neaves, page 5 

: 

i ; 

returned to.tha oounty tax assessor-qolleotore 

by this Department aftEer:theeourt deoieion holding that this Depsrtmnt had no interest in suah 

reestw 

Subsequently, lntha oase of State v. Glass, 161 5. W. 

(Zd) 296, rehearlngdenfea Santiary 83, 1943, wrlt of error refqrd, the Court of Oivll Appeals held that the assessor and 

oolleotor of taxes ia diache,rglIig the dutgea requited of him 

uuder the Certiiloate OS %tlr hot Se not ~lsohairging any dub 

ties pertainlug to any separite agenpy or orfloe,‘but that all 

such duties required of hia are~##v@ 

,3&s to the offloe of assessor a& @e 8 

autkes added by the statu;, 

eat-or of tams;, and that 

such fqw~e were to bs~aooouated for byJr,&&to the oountf In the 

their aedctrlea. 

: _. 
..Ronorable R'. C. Naavee., pb&e 6 
I 3 

Honorable R. C. Beams, p~fge 7 

agalust Fox, its Tax Aaeeaeol?, for salaries paid by Fox to 

his d8putlee rpr the years.1990 to 1986. The deputies wara 

paid from fees of orfloe oolleoted br Fox. At the trial it 

was oontended by the oouhty that the Tax Ae%eusor was not entitled to oredlt ior the ualarlee paid to da#utles baoause ha 

did not rpake applloatlon to the oomlssionera* oourtfor authority to appoint deputlea and the oomuWrrlonersg court had 

not granted auah autbDrlty aa required by statute. See A&l01s b909, supra. The Oou@t aontinuadr 

1 . 

l * * * War does it appear that. the aomvleelonere' oourti, at any time during said parlod, 

entered an order fixing %he number of deputies 

to k ,appointea 01: rixw ‘%he. aimunt of their 

*alarlea; aa the etatute pre8orib~a. The 0ountJr 

i.uLnrlst* that, beoauea the ourrqnt statutory pro- 

'visions fa the various reapecfta stated wore not 

met, lrox is not entitled to the aredlt dlafmed 

br him, tid that the ~auau r#.alaed by him, 09 aoyp$mor said salaries, are unfawfally retained. 

The Oourt rule&t 

.,.. ..~...~,,, ~.,., ..> .~..~.. .~..~.,.. . . ~,,., :.. .~ .,,~:ir&y.;) :,<I,& _..), s‘.:..~, ^~. ., ,i 

** * * Aaaumlng tha$ the oorleelonsz@ oourt , 

in auditiog aad settltag the aseountm of Fox, ap-- 

preved-the ammet 0r aalarlecl paid by iy.m to his 

provisions or the statute rogerding the appfidation ror authority to appaiat &putl6+6 ,wae lntenaod 

by the Iaglleluture to be a 005aitiOA pri@sd&nt ts 

the tax oo~eotor el4iMiAg orodit, ao a matter Of 

ri&t, ror salaries p.da hia dep@tiee,-we are furthor eatliifled that those protlelon6 were not It40 

tended to 

“p” 

rate as a oonaltlon reueaent to the 

exerafee o power by Thor oelraire P onera* court to 

a$prove the amounter ealarfom paid by the tirr OoLleotor rrom the feea of ottioe aol&eoted by hLm, and 

to allow him credit therefor. 60 iar as the aotion 

or the oommh? eionere* ooet In deln&~t’hls is OOAoernod; the previous laek of authority ln the tax 

aolleotor, In rospeot to said tmlariea, would be 

lnmlat0r1al. kifirmtlvo action in this reepeot, 

by the aoumlsaioners* aoultt .as suah, would bind 
Honorable H4 0. Xeaves , @a@e 8, 

g&~ .v. ‘Oa*nes, 106’9. a, (&id) SW, waa ,a aotion on’ 

beheir 0) wgiron 0ougty~ againat $%r ro~ratar :eherirr to reooveg 

certain sum pald.,,by him and aertain ieee retained by him ae deauotion8.~ Rae or the oauee al aotlon uae~based tlpoq )EOO paid.. 

a depot~p alwrif$~,: 

*While the deputation reeord8 40 not ~show his 

appoint-at arid the falnutsah of the oomnirs~anerlr* 

court do net,. reveal WY o,rder. i+ing hle oompeneatlon j thi8 .‘SQIU was ala&at&I 4:: a dedwtlon in 

: 

. 

_- J,:‘:. 
, 

t 

taking $t#t~&mrrideratioa that the .rees~o&leOted wore actually ' 

spent ror th+ parpee ~~iatina0a .by the Es,giel.aWre, that the 

aseessOrioOlleotbr~or'tatea,act~ in good raSth and did not 

prorlt, Or~~se& to, prorlti Dr his a?te, iia ln,l.aw, aa~ well as 

fir goad ooasixl~no~e apd ralr dealI%,, authorleed to ra!iil saoh 

erpenditctxeti tide by thcas8ess+ot and oolleator f3f taxer in' 

adn&nist&ring~~the~WOtor Ber$llYoate or TitZe dot. 

Ymuyi very truly