Q w. OFFICEOFTHEAmORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS \ - AUSTIN

honorable Char

. F. Eempbill County Auditor Upton county Rankin, Tens Dear sirt

fr+r letter of J opinion or tl¶l6 doper reada 6s f0110Vlt

aab’Brldge Warrants were to be funded OLIHovember 9, 19@. In acaordance with the oontpaot dated April 13, lg’ri? 8aid bonds uedpeto beep Interest at the sate of 4$ and vece to mature 

### ina period 

### 0r not over 8i.z yeaw* Fhia intention referred to chspter 163 of the Aots of theHonorable Chaa. F. Reaphill, page 2 

### .,n

Regular Seemion or the 47th Laglalature, Rouse Bill 153. Themebonda Werenever issued due to the fact that an injunotion l ult vaa 

### rmd in the Matrlot Court vhioh restrained the Comaalaalonere fr081 iaauing auuhbonda. It appears that quite a lar)le number of varranta which were to have been lnaluded in the funding deal vere issued Illegally.

“I will appreoiate row opin.ion on the follovingt (shie?~aa Is tha oontraat dated April 13 1940

never advertised nor aubmlttei to competitive biddIng) legal @ndbinding upon the Court. Nil1 the wuranta uUeh are outatmub l.ng, ::*a leegsl fidebtedner; of the Oountr if it la found that they wem llle&ally issued, and oould paplent t1oR.” on same be refused upOa

### praaentaApparently 700~

### PaiS@the question as to the validity of the oontraot under ooualderation beomae such eontraot iraanot let by oorpetitive bids. Wedo not have **be** fore ua the oontraot mentfioned in JOUPletter, therefore, Ve expreaa no opinion amto the validity of l ueh eontraot, exoept that oontracts-of the nature involved in thla came involving specialkill and experience, are not wlthln the ooatemplat5.on of the statute amto oum Bltalithio Companyv. Iiueoea Gounty, 1 Y titlve blda. (Gulf S. Y. (2d) 305; Houston v. Potter, 91 9, Y. 3898 Hunter v. Uhlteaker, 203 8. W. 1096; Douglas v. Hyrlck, 159 5. N. 4223 Qlbaon v. Da~la, 236 9. Y. 202; Tsokett v. llddleton, 280 8.Y. g8gt Walboe v. Cormaiaaionepa~ court, 281 S. W. 593; loper v. Hall, 280 8. 21.289; city 01’Houston v. Wooer, 89 S. Ii. 4260 &tlole 2368a, Vernon’s Annotated Civil dtatutea; Texas Jurisprudence, Volume 11, pags:.642.)

,paee 6421 It la stated in Texas Jurlapmdenoe, Volume 11,

“The statute requiring th8t oontrfuxta shall be let by oompetitive bids la eonatrwd amapplying only to work rhleh la oompetltlve in its nature; It does not control the ooaaaiaaioneral

### Xonorable ahas. F. EemxkhllL page 3

court in contraoting for l ervloea

requiring apeoial aklll, abllit~, or teohnioal 1eamlng. Hwever, It hambeen lntlrsted that a oontraot vlth arohitecte for plea and l ervloea lu 

### l

uperlntending the ereotlon of a building is within the terma of the statute.
. . .’ Zn view of the foregoing ~00~are respeotfully advised that It la our opinion that the above mentioned oontcaot is not invalid beoauae it vaa not let by competitive bids. In other 

### vorda, 6ontraota involving apeuidl~4r.lll, ability, or teohnical 

### learning are not within the contemplation OSt&a statute amto oompetltlve~blda. Fha iaot that the oontract under aonaideratlon vaa not let by **ooaqmtitlve bids**  does not Invalidate it.

lflth refermoe to your l eo ond Queatlon you axe advised **that** IS the outstanding warrantlasntlomd by you, were illegally issued, l u6hvumata are void md net a valid obligation agalrmt tlae oounty. Bowever, it la to be understood that weexpress no opinlcin 48 to the validity of l ueh varranta ainae wehave no inforratlon 

### Whatsoever pew ta’““f to 

### auoh werranta. In aonneation with 

### what ve have hereto ore maid, ve foe1 it proper to state that we express no 0 lnion ae to the 118billty 

### 0r the oofmtf to pay a reamom le valua for the aervlo~a~ goods 09 uroheadl.ae or g whatever vamobtained bj the oounty **by reason**  or **maid** marrants. In oonmatlaa with your l eoond question **and** what ve have heretofore maidv6 dlreot four attentloa to our opinions Hoe. O-2880 and O-4558, 

### aopiea of them opinlolu am l nolored herewith. Yours verr truly

AH:db Aaaiatmt
Rwloaurea