THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS __---- - 

Honorable Henry Wade 

District Attorney 

Dallas County 

Dallas, Texas 

Dear Mr. Wade: 

Aus~x~ H. TEXAS I 

Afkirmed by ..~...:3~~-. 

February 4, 1964 - I 

You have requested 

whether the Commissioners . . . . 

the opinion of this office as to 

Court of Dallas County has dlscrewon unaer me provisions of Article 681ga-25a, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes , in det,ermining the amount of additional compensation to be paid from county funds to visiting District 

Judges who are assigned to sit in Dallas County by the Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Judicial District. 

Opinion No. C-213 

Re: Under the provisions 

of Article 68lqa-25a, 

V.C.S., *does the commissioners court have 

discretion in determining the amount of additional compensation 

to be paid from county 

funds to visiting district judges who are 

assigned to sit by the 

presiding judge of the 

administrative judicial 

district. 

Section 1 of Article 68lqa-25a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

reads as follows: 

"In any county In this state having a 

population of five hundred thousand (500,000) 

or more according to the last preceding Federal 

Census and having five (5) or more Civil District Courts and two (2) or more Criminal District Courts, the judges of the several District, 

Criminal District, Domestic Relations and Juvenile Courts of such counties shall receive, In 

addition to the salary paid by the state to 

them, and to other District Judges of this state, 

the sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($~,ooo.oo) annually, to be paid in equal monthly installments 

out of the General Fund or Officers' Salary Fund 

of such counties. The Commissioners Court shall 

make proper budget provisions for the payment 

-1026- 
Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (c-213) 

thereof. Any District Judge of the state 

who may be assigned to sit for the Judge of 

any District Court in such counties under 

the provisions of Article 200-A, Revised 

Civll,Statutes, may, while so~servlng, receive an addition to his necessary expenses, 

additional compensation from county funds in 

an amount not to exceed the difference between 

the pay of such visiting judge from all sources 

by District Judges in the counties affected by 

the provisions ,of this Act, such amount to be 

paid by the 'county upon approval of the presiding judge in which said court is located," 

At the same session of the Legislature which enacted the 

preceding statute, Article 200a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, was 

amended,to provide a per diem of $25.00 ,per day for visiting 

judges. Article 200a provided that the per.diem allowance was 

to be paid in addition to and cumulative of all other compensation and expenses authorized by law for visiting judges. 

This amendment operated to change the payment from actual expenses to a flat rate of $25.00 per day, and provides that this 

per diem is to be 'paid upon c,ertificate of approval by the 

Chief Justice or by the Presiding Judge' of the Administrative 

&Micial District. These approval provisions were the same as 

those contalned in the,statute in qkestion, Article 681ga+a, 

at the time Attorney General's Opinion V-1111 was written. 

Attorney General's Opinion No. V-1111 (1950) answered 

the question as to whether the county auditor or the commissioners court had authority to review and approve the expense 

accounts of visiting judges under Article 200a, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. In that opinion it was held that the general statutes 

which, provide for review and approval of claims presented against 

the county did not apply to expense accounts submitted by vislting district judges and certified and approved by the presiding 

judge of the administrative district. The opinion further states: 

I, It is our opinion that the Legislature inte;ded to substitute the approval of 

the presiding judge in lieu of that of the commissioners' court and county auditor. 

"You are therefore advised that such expense accounts atie subject to audit and review 

by the presiding judge of the administrative 

district only." 

-1027- 
Hon. Henry Wade, page 3 (C-213) 

Article 681ga-25a places the question of approval 

squarely and solely on the pre,siding judge of the county 

in which said court is located. It does not mention approval 

by the commissioners court. In view of such silence, and 

particularly in view of the prior Attorney General's opinion 

on the subject, It Is the opinion of this office that the Commissioners Court of. Dallas County, Texas, does not have authority or discretion to determine what additional compensation 

shall be paid to visiting District Judges assigned to sit In 

Dallas County by the Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Judicial District. Such discretion is vested by the 

statute In the said Presiding Judge and may only be exerclsed by him. 

SUMMARY 

Article 681ga-25a, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, vests in the presiding judge 

of the adminlstrati,ve judicial district 

discretion in approving the amount of 

additional compensation to be paid from 

county funds to visiting judges who are 

assigned to sit within the administrative 

judicial district. 

The commissioners court has no dlscretion in approving any payment under 

Article 681ga-25a, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

~Y~dd~& . 

MLQ:ms Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John Reeves 

James M. Strock 

Edward R. Moffett 

Bob Flowers 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Stanton Stone 

-1028-