### OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN **GROVER** 

### SELLERS ATTORH=I

**GRETA,.**



### Honorable Lon Alsup Executive Secretary-Director State Commission for theBlind Austin, Texas
"ear !Ar.

Alsupr OpinionBoa O-7181 A Re: Is Federal Gover&en~ required

Your letter states Comptroller issued a State payable to the 

### United Farm Security lost, andhad

not do sounl~e
Vernon'sAnnotated Cltll

/ +&ask ~'$0 '

"' a,@se If any 

### branch of theFederal

r;r&qulre&&Wmake bond when a warrant'haebeen epahtment of theFederal Government by the State Com&,rolJerotjPublic Accounts, and suchwarrant has 

### been lost.?

_'\,, l/' / 1. 

### Ar,tl&le4365,Revised Statutes,above referred to, ~rovide~~~~eclflcally for the Issuance 

### of a duplicatewarrant 

### when the original hasbeen lost 'butno such duplicate warrant or other evidence of lndehtedness &al] issueuntil theapplicanthas filedwith the Comptrollerhis affidavit, statlnethathe Is the trueowner 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 tobe apnroYedby 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 22615yesorlhes 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 Is executed. Very truly pours

COYMn-rLE 

### GWB-XR