Honorable Rewell Cambron 

County Auditor 

Hopkins County' 

Sulphur Springs, Texas 

Dear Sir3 Obinion Ro. O-4033 

Rb: Under the fa&s submitted 

are the County Commissioners 

of Hopkins County free to 

spend over ana above'their 

budget allotment; the amouht 

which they'have earned'in excess of~the amount it iras 

anticipated that they would 

earn? 

Your letter of September 9, 1942, requesting the 

opinion of this department on the above stated question reads 

as follows~ 

'"I am in immediate need of.an opinion as 

to the limitation of expenditures under the 

uniform budget law. One of our road and bridge 

prebincts has exceeded its authorized expenditures bg more than $3000.00. Hotiever the commissioner of this precln'ct has earned over 

$1200..00 with his equipment and It was anticipated that he irould-earn approximately. 

$2000.00. 'Another one'of the' commissioners 

has $2267.40 leftln'his budget and'has earned 

iiith his equipment $12271;89,'ln oomparison 

with a~~budget estimate thathe~ would.earn approximately~$2000.00~ The question which I 

would lrkb to-ask you-is thFs:-' Are these bomq iss'lonera free to spend over and above their 

budget allotment the amount which they have 

earned ln excess-of the amount Ft was anticipated 

that they would earn. If.~you-are in need of 

shy other information relative to thFs I shall 

.be glad to supply Ft. 

"Rext Monday September 14th is OUP Commlssioners Court day and 1f you can possibly send mean opinion by that date I would greatly appreciate 

your doFng so." 
honorable Newell Cambron, Page 2 

_ . . -’ 

Article 2372c, Vernon'sAnnotated Civil Statutks, 

among other things, authorizes the counties of this State 

acting through the commissconers' courts of said counties 

to employ, or permit to be employed, any road, construction 

or other machinery or road equipment in the servic.e of sol1 

eonservation ahd prevention of'soil waste through erosion, 

cThenever in the judgment of the county commissioners' court, 

entered upon the minutes of the Court, such machinery or 

e'quipment is not demanded for the service of building and 

tho upkeep of the roads of the county; and shall provide 

for compensation to the county road' fund, OP the road funds 

of any defined district br authorized subdivision in the 

county, for such employment of road equipment. In other 

ords, the Commissioners 1 'courts of the. various counties 

have the authority to cooperate wFth the land owners and tax 

payers of said counties Fn all judiclous'efforts for the 

preservation of the productiveness of the soil from avoidable 

waste, and loss' of productiveness of agricultural crops 

necessary to the public welfare, through permission to use 

the machinery and equipment that Mayo be made available by the 

county for such purposes under written contract, and the 

county shall receive from such land 'owners and taxpayers 

compensation, upon such uniform basis as may be deemed 

equitable and proper, for the cooperation extended and 

services rendered, all such compensation or funds to the 

county to be paid into the road and bridge fund of the 

county. 

As we understand your request, the money referred 

to is money earned by the various county commissioners of 

e 

our county under the above mentioned statute. In peparing 

he county budget it was estimated'that' the various tiommiss'Soners would earn approximately $2000.00 each by then use of the 

road machinery for'the purposes set out in Article 2372c, 

supra. However, two of the commissioners' earned in excess 

of the amount estimated, therefore, such earnings' were not 

anticipated or set forth In the budget and the question 

arises whether or' not these commissioners are free to spend 

over and above their budget allotment the amount whFch they 

have oarned in excess of the amount it was anticipated that 

they would earn. 

Article 68ga-9, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statute.s, 

provides for the preparation of the county budget. Article 

68ga-10, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides that. 

when the county judge has completed a budget for the county 

that a copy of the same should be filed with the clerk of 

the county, available for the inspection of any taxpayer. 
Honorable Newell Cambron, Page 3 

., 

Article 689ak11, Vernon*8 Anaotated Civil Statutes, 

reads in part as follows: 

_ 

"* + * When the budget has been finally " 

approved by the obmmissFoherst court,-the budget 

as~approved by the'court'shall be filea'tith the 

clerk of the-' oouhtj"court; and taxes IevieiYonlg 

in' accordance therewlth,/and no bxPendrfurba of 

the. funds of' the county-~shall thereafter be made 

except Fn.strIct aompllanob~wlth the budget'~asadopted by the court. Excebt in emergency expenditures,~ln case of grave public necessity, 

to meet unusual' and unforseen bondltions, which 

cou'ld not, by reasonable diligent thought and 

attentFon, have been Included in the original 

buoget, may from time to time be aut.herized.by 

the court as amendmeat to the original budget. 

In all cases where- such amendments to the 

original budget' are made', a copy of the order 

of the 6ourt amending the budget shall be filed 

with the clerk of the county court, and attached 

to the budget originally adopted." 

'This department has repeatedly ruled that the~~~Commlaslonersf CoUFt of a county Is without authority to make 

any'expenditure‘ of funds bf the 'tiohnty except-La strict compllanoe withy the budgef;exoept emergency'expendlturea ia 

case of rave public necessity, 

Article % ~89a,, supra. 

aa~ outlined by Section 11 of 

This department has also repeatedly 

ruled that Section'20 of'ArtScle.68%, Veraon's Annotated 

Civil Statutes does not authorize the commissioners' court 

to 7.ntirease ths budget after'lts adoptibn and that to hold 

otherwise would destroy the very purpose of the Act. ., 

We enclose-herewlth copies of Oplnlon Hos. 0'1053 

and O-1022 of this department which contain discussions of 

the budget law. 

'Opinion No. O-1053 defines terms "grave" and 

"public' necessity". Opinions Pros. O-1053 and O-1022 hold 

that the question 'of "grave public necessLty" Is a fabt 

question to be determined primarily by the commlaslonera~ 

court. 

In vFew of the foregoing statutes and the facts 

contained in your inquiry, the above' stated question la 

respectfully answered Fn the negative. 
Honorable Newell Cambron, Page 4 

You are further advi~sed that whether or not the 

county budget can now.be amended in order that the above 

mentioned funds may be expended depends upon whether or 

not "grave public necessity" exists', and as above stated, 

the question of "grave public necessity" is a fact question 

to be determined primarily by the commissioners' court. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your 

inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED SEPT. ~17, 1942 

/s/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AW:nw:jrb 

Encl. 

By /s/ Ardell Williams 

Ardell Williams 

Assistant 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY BWB, Chairman