j OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

j AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

Avr8111w GENIAL 

llonorablc John II. Shook 

Crlmlnal District Attorney 

Bexar County 

Son Antonio, Texas 

Dear Mr. Shook: Opltllon RO* O-7461 

We hate four 

Article 23726, leraoa' 

respect to the ahot 

the aonstructlaa oi 

Civil Statutes, with 

et-1 8s fol]owBt 

f P. E. Dlcklnon, 

t, Texas, redatember, 1946, to 

the Aderaor-Collector 

nd during the last twelve 

r, went to work with the City of Ssa 

first day of September, and ras eme period from September 1st through 

'atTBsrIOR: Can this employee be paid for the 

period from September 1st to Scpteaber 15th by the Assessor-Colleator of Bexar County, Texas? 

*By way of brief, YOU 8re referred to Article 

2372g of the Revised Clrll Statute. of the State oi 

Texas, and your attention is dlreated p8rtlanlarl~ 
amarable John R. Sbcc! - pare 2 I.43 _ 

to Section 3 thereof. Tour attention Is also dlrooted to Article 16, Section 40, Of the Constitution. 

.so far as we hate been able ta MI‘:!, the 

question of abether or not 8 party ray be pald for 

vacation t.iwe bf the Count.7 while working for another po?ltiaal subdirision has not been Ozsued on 

since Artfcle 2372~ was passed by t.he ?eelslature.* 

TON call our attept.lon to Article 23?2~, Vernon’s 

C~:?fflcation of the Clrjl Statutes, helng H. Ii. Xo. 77, ch. 58. 

of-the Acts of the 49th Texidature at its neizular Fesdnn. 

t?ection 3 nf t.hat Article is as f~11 os~st 

"The Coiwissloaere Courts 5~8~ ffnnt racatlons 

to errvlopees in the actual emOlop of 4~ch counties 

not exaeedinE fourteen (14) days in anp calendar 

year .znd, when such vacatlelrn are erznted, aI7 enrloyees In actual emylapevt of such c~untjes sha'll 

be cnmnensated for such vacatlm, time as If actual 

service were helvc rendered under thejr emnlopent. 

It bein? t.he purpose nf thjs Act to want reesonahle 

vacation time durlnr each oalmdar year For employees In the aouvties embraced within thjs Act.’ 

Berar County PalYs Utt?in the class c\f counties thus 

enhraced. 

IOU alse cite Section 40 of Article XVI of the State 

Ccnstltutlon. That Eeotlon Insofar au wertjnent In as follower 

"FO person shall hold or exerol se, 8 t t,he sar?e 

tine, more tbsn dire Oitil offioe Of emnlunewf,**+.* 

Xe *ssu*e from pour clt,lng Sectinn 40 it was your 

trrucbt that the question Of clnal oftlce-boldi~nc by the emn?oyee in nresented. 

IOU rlo not. state the character of serrjoe Farformed by 

this erinloree fOr the c1t.v 0T 5an Avtanlo, but were3r say he, however, .xent t,o rnr:- rj th t.he city Of Can Antonio IV the 1st day 

of Fentepber and ran evlrTlnred hlrins! the nerlod from Sertember 

1st throupb Sentemher 15the". We are not 8drised whether hjs service VP= t.pst of an otffcer Or s mere emnlapee &wlnB that verlod. 

We ausure, however, thst Fe was an e~~rlovee w+fl mot aF offfcer of 
the ci tv of San Artonio. Mareovert you do not shot t,hat the 

emntoyee lnvalvc~ was other than an employee hy !'r. Dictioon, 

the Tax Assessor-Collector of Perar Countv, ard we therefore 

a6w?w that he was not nn offjcer Of the county but 18s e mere 

err! ogee. 

Cpon these osunmrtlons -- that i6, that the em))Yoyee 

into1 red -- was an employee, as oontradlstlngulshed from 811 officer, in hoth eervioes , no question of irue office-holding Is 

jnvolverl, and Section 40 of ArtlOYB XVI of the Constjtutlcw has 

no l-earing upon the problem presented. 

In some oaem it fs true, as where the dual sewice by 

en eFp1 oyee of one mtmiojpalj ty ~rformin? at the same time of 

hjs servjce n service for enother munlOip8lit~, miRht be of such 

Inoomnatihllit~v es t.het one or even hnth municipalities might refuse to nay hjr couwensatjon for such rerfod, but that principle 

of rwb>ic poljoy canI% hardly a?!plJ t.0 the situation st8ted by 

VU, for indisruk.ahIv the employee did not owe to Rexar County 

t?!a duty nf any servzlce nhettoever dvrlnr the st8tutory vacation 

n~Jnwer) to him on fu?l wv, sn% Werefore his actual perfc?munce 

nf CervIoe for another municipal esploper could not he incon?natlh?e with any duty he owed to We County. 

We know of no reason rhy,urder the facts state% h? you, 

1:exar Ccunty FBJ not be llahle an3 should not PRY t@ the employee 

hi6 stjpulated sa1arv for an% through .the +aeatl,on neriorl allowed 

him. Under the statutorv scheme of aT?oranoe OP ren sonable vacat37n 131379 t,o erplovees , he was entl tYed to this concessjon, hut 

wa = not comnelled to devote nuch t.ime to rest nnd Jel?nwe, ejther 

at home, ip the huntinE fjelds, or on #e river banks. Hi6 thIe 

fer 6uch period wa6 hi6 ver? rwn, and if for an3 ree8on he 681 fit 

t.r, t,urn It to comnensatory actiojtlea, his was the choice, ard, he 

?-arrrs neither t.he State , the aounty nor env j?!diri%t:RS. As the 

?tr*7.3rb has it, "Nobcdy Seems one nen?y the worse”!