OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

ATTORH=I GRETA,. 

Honorable Lon Alsup 

Executive Secretary-Director 

State Commission for the Blind 

Austin, Texas 

"ear !Ar. Alsupr Opinion Boa O-7181 

A 

Re: Is Federal Gover&en~ required 

Your letter states 

Comptroller issued a State 

payable to the United 

Farm Security 

lost, and had 

not do so unl~e 

Vernon's Annotated Cltll 

/ +&ask ~'$0 ' 

"' 

a,@se If any branch of the Federal 

r; 

r&qulre&&Wmake bond when a warrant'hae been 

epahtment of the Federal Government by the State 

Com&,rolJer otj Public Accounts, and such warrant has been 

lost.? 

_ ' \,, l/' / 

1. Ar,tl&le 4365, Revised Statutes, above referred to, 

~rovide~~~~eclflcally for the Issuance of a duplicate warrant when the original has been lost 'but no such duplicate 

warrant or other evidence of lndehtedness &al] issue until 

the applicant has filed with the Comptroller his affidavit, 

statlne that he Is the true owner of such instrument, and 

that tke same is in fact lout or destroyed, and shall also 

file with the Comotroller his bond In double the amount Of 

the claim, with two or more pood and sufficient sureties, 

payab!e to the Governor to be apnroYed by the Comptroller.' 
- , 812 

Honorable ton AI sup - page 2 

In OUF O?lnlon X0. c)-23O%, R copy of' Which YOU have, 

this Pepartment held that before the Pallas Independent School 

District could. obtain a duplicate Warrant, It, as a yoljtlcal 

subdivision of the State’, was required to execute the hond before obtaininn a duplicate warrant. In said Opinion we held 

that there were no exceptions oontalned In said statute, and 

t?at ft therefore applied, and would apply, to each and all 

of the State Governmental agencies. 

In the case of United States Y. Branson, 147 8. 1. 

(2) 286, (error ref.) the United States had filed suit to reoover a monied judgment apalnst the Banking Comlssloner. 

The trial court held aralnst the United States, and it appealed. The court had for review the question of the necessity 

for the United States t.o execute an appeal bond under Article 

2263 of the Revised Civil Statutes. In holding that it was 

necessary, the court stated; 

‘Art. 22!53. Rev. WY. Stat.‘,1925, provldes that 

‘An appeal may 0 * * be taken * * * by the appellant 

giving notice of anpeal * * l by his fillne with the 

clerk an apueal bond wh~ere a bond Is required by law. 

if**‘. Artlole 22615 yesorlhes the form and suffiolency of t.he bond. The Legislature has seen fit to exemnt certain persons and entitles from the requlrement of.fllin~ an appeal bond * * * but no Texas 

statute, either expressly or by Implication, exempts 

the United States from giving the bona required by 

Article 2253. Xelther Is it exempted by any Act of 

Congr’eee~’ 

Since our courts have speclficallf held that the 

United States Government, In order to perfect an appeal to 

our State court,s,mst give an appeal bond, they rould unquestionably hold that before the Lbited State’s Government, 

or any of Its ageno’les, cou!d obtain a duplicate warrant from 

the Comptroller, under Article 438.1) of the Revised St.atutes, 

It would be necessary for It to execute the bona required 

therein. 

In reply to your question, therefore, we state t.hat 

the Comptroller is correct in his refusa.1 to Issue a dup’llcate 

warra.nt until and/or unless the bond required by said statute 

I s executed. 

Very truly pours 

COYMn-rLE 

GWB-XR