AUSTIN 

Honorsble C-ball K. iTord 

County,Attoraey 

San 3abn County 

8611 Saha, Texae 

Deer Slrr 

Your recent re 

opon.ths questions a8 ar 

&an of this Departcrent 

has been received. 

tin% liquor in Sm ;ic4ba 

fined .$lOO.OO and costs.. By 

prior to the first ot January, durthe formr County Attorney, the deo the County Clerk +75.00 leaving 

~,44.00 whioh has been peld into tt:c 

since I went Into office January lat. 

The question arises as to who is entitled to the 

$lO,oo fee end the $lO.OO ~0ItXrdBSiOn due the CoUty 

Attorney. 
Eonorible Campbell K. Ford, Fa.ge 2 

_ “Under a rsling to H. E, Beaaley, County 

Auditor,, Collins County, January 16, 1940, opinion $1792, it is as follows: W:421ere onlr 

8 part OP the f'ine and costs as-6 collected, the 

mOneY eMl.~ot~d should go first to the payzent 

Of the oost and the balance, if any, to the amount or the sine.* Er. Xalters and I agree 

that he is entitled to the $10.00 fee, The 

QueStion is whether or not he is entitled to 

the $10.00 comlsslon on the ~100.00 fine? 

olaizm It is due him because the $,75.00 paid 

ge 

before he went~ out oi office wes sufficient to 

oover the fees and comlssign. Only 444.00 

has been paid since be went out of offioe on 

~tbe Sine. Does he get the full Z~lO.00 cornCdSSiOn, or iS be entitled t0 the ten per cent. 

Of the fine that was paid in and 813. I entitled 

to ten per csnt of the $44.00 that has been 

paia Binoe I Went i.n? The clerk is holding the 

*lo.00 commission aubJeot to your ruling. 

"Further su5gestlog that during ?Zr. galter'a term of offioe several cams were appealed from oonviotions in the County Court to 

the Court of C+.inal Appeals end scple of those 

oases will be aftfimed. When the mndats is returned Er. Kalters will insist that he is entitled to the fees and comiasions under thoae con- 

* riotions that are aflimied and we want, to know 

%X' he la correct about it or will I be entitled 

to the fee and com.%ssion as his suoces8or under 

the prcviaione of the Statute? hrt. 335, 'Bern. 

Ann. St., Vol. 1, c. 527, which was construed in 

the CQSB of Flint v. Jones County, 5C 5X, 203, 

wherein it iS held *The County Attcrney who iS 

ln office when the COlleCtiOA iS SCtuelly -de 

fa entitled to the c03~;iSSionS no;r,ed in thiS 

artic1.e ~3 fees in his office, and not the One 

who prosecuted the suit to jud&raent but whose 

tern of office expired before the collection 

was made.* Also und.er decision in 66 St*, pe 48, 
Bonorable Campbell K. Ford, Fage 3 

relying upon this etatute.end these two construotions thereof. %X11 I~be entitled as the 

incumbent officer to the rees and commissions 

oollected under these convictions during Yr. 

'#alter's term of offioe but affirmed and collected cnder ny tern of office? Lr. ?;alters 

claims thst this article and two statutes do 

not d6aide thia question and that he will be 

entitled to all See8 and coqrmiesionn collected on these oases. 

We would like at your earliest convenienoe to have your opinion on these questions.* 

We do not think that Article 335, Vernon*8 Annotated 

Civil Statutes is eDplIcable to the question lnvoiving the oomnlsaione onxines. etc.. but the same is fiovsrned br biticle 

950, 

0 

Code of Criminal Froaedure, which re&s as Soliower 

"The District or County Attorney shall be 

entitled to ten per oent OS all Sines, Sorfoituras, 

or moneys collected Sor the State or County, upon 

judgments reoovered by him; and the clerk oS the 

oourt In which said judgmnts are rendered shell 

be entitled to five per cent of said judgments, to 

be paid out of the amount then collected.* 

hrtlole 3892, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes reads ma 

as rolrowa: 

"Any offioar mentioned in this Chapter who 

does not oolleat tbe maximum amount of his teea 

Sor any fiscal year and who reports delinquent 

fees for that year, shall be entitled to retain, 

when oollected, such part of such ddlinquent 

Sees as is sufrioient to complete the maximum 

oompensation authorized by Articles 3883, 3883-A, 

and 3886 for the year in which delinquent fees 

were chn-rzed, and also retain the mount of excess fees authorized by law, and the re:.:ainder 

OS the delinquent fees ror that fiscal year 

shall be paid es herein provided for when collected; proviCed the provisions of this Article 

shall not apply to any officer after one year 

from the date ho ceases to hold tile Office t0 
Eonorable Campbell II. Ford, Fage 4 

702 

which any delinquent fee is due, end in the 

event the ofricer earning- the feea that are delinquent has not oolleoted the same within twelve 

months atter he ceasea to hold the office,~the 

amount OS Sees collected shall be paid into the 

oountytreasurg. Frovlded, however, that nothing 

in this Xot precludes the payment of ex-officio 

Sees in accordanoe with Title 61 OS the Pevlsed 

Civil statutes of Tesas, 1925, as part of the 

maximum compensation. Provided, that any change 

made In this Article by this Aot shall not ap;ly 

to fees heretoSore earned.’ 

Artiu&e 3891, Vernon’6 Annotated Cl& Statutes, 

reads, In part, as Sollowsr 

-* * * All current fees earned and collected 

by ofiicera named In Article 3823 during any 

riaos.1 year in excess OS the maximum and axcess allowed by this Aat, and for their services 

and. Sor the servicea of their deputies end aesistante and authorized expenses, together with all 

delinquent Sees collected and not used as provided fin Article 3892, or used to pay aalarlea OS 

deputies and asslstanto when ourrent fees are 

lnaufSicfent, shall be paid into the County Treasury in the county where the exooss aaoruod. 

*All feea due and not collected, as shown In 

the report required by Article 3897, shall be oollected by the ofticer to vihoa6 orriae the fees aatrued and shall be dispoaed oS by said officer in 

eoaordance wlth the provisions OS this Act. * * *R 

It is to be noted that the language used in Article 

930, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that the comniieslons 

are payable to the county attorney who recovered the judgment. 

on February 24, 1932, this departzont held in an opinion written by :ionorable Horrer C. DeXolfe addressed to Eonorable Taylor Carlisle, County Attorney, Kaufman, Texas, that 

the former Coungy Attorney was entitled to the comcais~ion~ on 

fines, under facts similar to those stated in your inWirY- 
. 

Honorable Cmpbell X. For&, Fags 8 

In view of the Soregoing, you are respectfully ad- risea that it is the opin$on or this Cepart;ont that the 

fomier County Attorney is entitled to tke corini6sione on 

tte fines &cd 113 a~lso editha to the reef3 aB provided by 

statute for his serviosa in the cases that he tried and are 

now on appeal, r,rovlded, horejer, he has not alraady oolledted the IL-aximum mount Oi his fees fcr the year in whloh 

said fees were earned, and , provided further, thnt said fees 

nere reported by h5m as delinquent fees Scr that year, end 

are oolleoted within twelve rronthe after he goes otzt of off1ce. 

Trusting that tte foregoing fully~answers your In- ( 

qulry, we are 

, 

,+-- FIRST ASS.;STAN+ .' 

Al!TORJ.iEY G$I?ERAL