, 

I 

OFFlCE OF 

Honorable Tcln F. 

Count Attornw 

AIdaa couat7 

Lurkia, Tolao 

THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

. 

a8 per oontreqt. 

a boon roodrod aaa oaro0 puoto ram your rodorkklag to ooa8truot 

herewltb it 18 nooo8- 

a aorer 0r land. The 

Ot8 to thi8 had 8IId it 

the8o abatraOt8 oxaminduty .or tho county Attoraoy to 

rtrrot87 Should he be paid addiiOil fOt tb8. 86l'tiO08?" 

have the authority to ooartruot l lrport8 

68 a0 mar bo llOOO88a~ for 8UOh ~W~08o8, 

8eO &tiOl#8 h 

UtO8 and UOWilllOk%~8 

i, Yomon~8 Annotated Tons8 01~11 StatIhis Bill el6 and &UlatO Bill 398, 

cL'lth'Lsgi8latW Of &Ui8. None of theaa arffolss or amnbmeats provider tbet it 18 the dutr Of the County Attorney to 

Wid~e th0 ab.YtreCt Or title On 3.~48 aO+ird bp th6 OORnty 

ror airport gurpoasr. we are unable to find any 8tatute making it the du.ty or the County Attcrney to smmine euch ab8tl'tiOta. 
Honorable 

declarrr: 

mwlt 

utioia v, s8oti0n zl 0r OUT stat0 cotaituti0n, 

l The oouaty attorney8 shall r8protie%atO ELI a1l O(L808 in th0 Di8ttrlot and 

laforior aourtr in their rerpootlro oouatle'8; 

but 'ii a4~ OOuaty Phu bo lnaluded in a dirtrlot in whioh thoro 8hal.l be a dlrtrlot attoraoy, the rerpoetlto duties 0r dirtriot attOrIley aad OoUlltf attOrlhq8 Sbu in mch 

countle8 be regulated bl the Lsgl8laturo. . . .* 

The abort gtlofad prorlalon or thr Coa8tltutlOn ha8 

been Oon8trueb a8 not prrserlbing the dutie8 of the Dirtriot 

AttorMr aor an7 dUtiO8 root COWlt.~ Attornoy8 other tlmn 8uoh 

a8 are rmgulrsd to be perronued ror the State. Bor d0'38 it 

glro the County Attornoy authority to Institute a proceeding 

eples8 he is given that power by rtatute. The term wdutlss* 

a8 U8ed in the COa8titUtiOMl proririon above set forth ha8 

been deolared to coaprehead the further idea of power or 

authority; and honor tho County Attorney 1s raid to bars ao 

l W.horltr to perrora auf aat la ra8est to W&oh ao duty 

ha8 baan made to dsvo&ra upon hia. Spencer 1. OalTo8ton 

County, 56 Tar. 3841 klar v. State, ZU 9. V. ESl; Dunoan 

v. State, 69 9. N. 905. 

30 Quote tran an 0pinion rendered br Hoaomblo 

Scott Geine8, Zlrst asrlrtant Attorney otumral 0r rdxab, 

- Jaauarr 2, 1935: 

*unle88 the rtatuto provider ror tho oouaty 

attorney to represent the oounty in a oiril aetlon, 

it 18 not the duty or the oountyrttornoy to do 

Ia oa8e8 rhsn tha oouaty attorney 18 roqulrZ'to represent the county aad no r6m i8 prorcrlbrd, 

then the coapsaaatlon oi the countr attornq 18 ths 

ax orrloio eonpensetlon that will be allowed under 

Artlols 5695, oxoept in oases where a aartaln 

amount or money 18 raoovered, then hi8 eompeasatioa 

10 that authorize& by Artlols 555. 

*In casea where the law doe8 Lot repulre- tha 

count7 attorney to repreient the county, the boatpensation is that vihlch is agreed upon between the 

county attorney and the coaml.~alonera* court just 

in the same nmnner as if some other attorney had 

bean smployad by the county.* 
Honorabla Ton ?. Colmran, Pago 3 

Thi8 de 

Xonorab1.e Julius % 

aitment hold in an oplaloa written br 

ranki, h8i8tMt Attorney odneral, dated 

September 11, 1934, that the Cond3810ner8t Court had the 

tiplied atlthorlty a8 general aalreger of oounty b~8lnos8, 

to retain prirato ooun8al in the pro8eoutioa 0r olvll rultr 

larolrlag county matter8 gsnorally and that there uero ao 

8tatutosy provision8 making it tho dutr eZ tho Countf Attorney to repre8aent the oounty in coAdM8stion pmoe8diagr 

Or trO8m88 t0 trr tit10 and ia~lrnCtiOll 8Uit8, 8lld that 

the Commlasloner8' Court had authority to appropriate 

money out or the general fund or the Oounty to pay the attorney8 hir8d to represent the oounty in moh piooeobiagr. 

Qplnlon IO. o-1040 of thi8 department: hold8 that 

it 18 not the duty ot thr Couatr Attorney to reprssmat the 

eowty in condemnation prooeedingr and that the Commls8loMr8' Court ha8 the authority to Oontwot wlth the Couaty 

Attorney to repkesent the county in eaxh prooeedingr and 

oozpensata him a8 por oontnaot. 

fn the MS08 Or ~OM8 T. ~OltISMU. 191 8. U. 

ma lattimore,r. Tarrant County, 124 9. N. 205, it wa8 

2J37, 

held that the COEEUiS8iOfldt8' Court may lawfully -ploy thr 

County Attorney to roprosoat the lntemsst of their oowitf 

in any cauae where moh duty 18 not enjoined upon hla by 

law. -. 

TOIA are themroro r88peotfuUy adTi8ed that it 

18 the opinion Of this drpartmsnt that it 18 not the dot7 

or the county Attorney to l miao the abrtraot8 0r tit10 to 

tha oounty alrport. Tha Caamis8ionor8t, Court would harm 

authority to ooatraot with him a8 any Other prfvato attornay to exqniae 8uOh l b8traOt8 and pay him for 8uah 8WViOO8 

a8 per oontraot. ‘-. 

..fl : Go