TEIEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF-TEXAS 

Honorable G.C. Olsen 

County Attorney 

Winkler Coufitg 

Kermit, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6386' 

Re: Legality of paying the premlums on 

the bonds of county commissioners, 

county auditors and county treasurer 

of Wlnkler County, out of Officers' 

Salary Fund, and reimbursement for 

premium paid in prior year. 

Your letter of January 15, 1945, requesting an opinion 

of this Department on the questions stated therein reads in part 

as follows: 

"(1) According to the 1940 Federal census 

Wlnkler County had a population of 6,141. 

"(2) The 1944 accrued tax roll shows Winkler 

County, Texas, has a valuation of $20,819,098. 

"(3) During the year 1945 and during the 

prior years that will be involved in this opinion, 

the county and precinct officials of Winkler County, 

Texas, have been on a salary basis, such orders putting them on a salary basis having been duly and 

properly and timely passed by the Commissioners 

Court of Winkler County, Texas. 

"(4)' The premiums on the bonds for all 

other county and precinct officials other than 

the county commissioners, county auditor, and 

county treasurer have been allowed and ordered 

paid by the said commissioners court, and such 

payment has been made by the county auditor out 

of the Officers' Salary Fund. 

"(5) During that same period of time when 

the above mentioned premiums on the bonds of the 

above mentIoned officers were paid, the bona premium of the county commissioners, county auditor, 

and county treasurer were not paid. 
Honorable G. C, Olsen, page 2 o-6386 

"Your opinion Is requested as to the legality of paying the premiums on the bonds of such 

said county commissloners, county auditor, and 

county treasurer out of the Officers' Salary Fund, 

and %f it is legal to make such payment, can such 

payments now be made for those years In which such 

bond premiums were not paid? 

"It is my opinion that if it is legal to pay 

such said bona premiums, now, it was legal to pay 

them ever since the law authorizing and permitting 

such payment was passed and made effective." 

The facts show that your County comes under Article 3899 

(b) as being one in which all of the officers are paid on the 

salary basis, 

Article 3899 (b), Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides in part as follows: 

"Each officer named In this Act, where he 

receives a salary as compensation for his services, 

shall be entitled and permitted to purchase or charge 

to his county all reasonable expenses necessary in 

the proper and legal conduct of his office, premiums 

on official bonds, premiums on fire, burglary, theft, 

robbery insurance protecting public funds, and including the cost of surety bonds for his deputies, provided that expenses Incurred for premiums on official 

bonds for the county treasurer, county auditor, county 

road commissioners, county school superintendent, and 

the hide and animal inspector, including the cost of 

surety bonds for any deputies of any such officers, 

may be also included, and such expenses to be passed on, 

predetermined and allowed in the time and amount, as 

nearly as possible, by the commissioners' court once 

each month for the ensuing months, upon the application by each officer, stating the klna, probable 

amount of expenditure and the necessity for the expenses of his office for such ensuing months, whfch 

application shall, before presentation to said court, 

first be endorsed by the county auditor, if any, 

otherwise the countg~ treasurer, only as to whether 

funds are available for payment of such expenses. 

0 a All such approved clafms and accounts shall 

be pald from the Officers' Salary Fund unless otherwise provided herein." 

The officers named in your letter are distinctly set out 

as being entitled to have the premiums paid as to their official 
Honorable G, C, Olsen, page 3 O-6386 

bonds, the procedure necessary to be followed and the funds from 

which these expenses shall be paid, 

With reference to your second question in regard to the 

legality of refmbursement for premiums paid in prior years, we 

wish to call your attention to' Opinion No. O-5035 In which it 

was held by this Department that the county officials must comply with the provisions of Article 3899, V.A.C.S., by presenting 

their applications to the Commissioners' Court endorsed by the 

County Auditor as to whether funds were available in the Officers' Salary Fund for payment of such expenses, stating the 

kind, probable amount of expenditures and the necessity for expenses for bond premiums paid by said county officials. Unless 

'said county offfcials complied with the provisions of the statute 

as heretofore mentfoned, it is our opinion that the county cannot legally reimburse the county officials for bond premiums 

paid by them. 

It will be also noted that ordinarily, bona premiums as 

mentioned in the statutes are paid in advance covering a~'perlod 

of one year and further in this connection the statute makes-no 

provisions for a refund or reimbursement for bona premiums paid 

by said county officials. 

Therefore, it is the opinion of this Department that the 

county could legally pay the premiums on official bonds but could 

not reimburse the officials for premiums paid in the prior years. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/John C. Knorpp 

John C. Knorpp 

Assistant 

JCKrfo:we 

APPROVED JAN 25, 1945 

s/Carlos C, Ashley 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Approved Opinion CommIttee by s/BWB Chairman