h 

: i ‘OFFICE Oi= THE A~T~IWJEY GENEIWL 0F TEXAS 

Gear Sir: Opinion No. 0-2GO3-A 

~~ Re: :zhcthor State &~~&rahtlse 

supplies from Nm Zwzmnfela~ 

Texti.la.~Eilla, (1 vioe-prasldent 

of that aonaern being a member 

of,'the.?e%as Prison Eoard. 

In your letter.'of +Iugu& 15, 1940, YOU advise that 

xaltsr Dillord,.a member.c$the Texas Prison Eoard, is also 

vice-president of the New Brauntels Textile Xills, and in 

view of such faot request our opinion QS to whether the State 

my purchase cer$dn supplies for the use of the Prison System 

fron slid I\'e;q Brhunfets Textile Xills,~ nhich we assme is a 

aorporation. ,. ~I' ,. .,,,, 

.._ 

T&co~rts alr?ost"unanimusly hofd void t!lose 

contracts bet.tieen puhUc boards 3s one party rnc? a filembber of

that boerd'iu his pri.vote ccrpncity es the other party, without 

in,quirin(: lnto th&..fr:irnes,s of the trcne.act?on. Our opinions 

Numbers q-l.014 and 04378,~~and authorities therein cited. This 

6,etitti'ne se.me Cenerallp to have been applied~in the undoing 

c@ cQntracts between municipalities hnB firms or corporations 

*t:hich an officer or employee of the nunicipzllty wcs a 

me-her; "%t ,, stockholdtir or employee, ahether such ofiicer or employee perticipatcd in makin& the contrcct in bc>mlS of the 

ciUd0ipality or not. 44 C. J. 93; Dillon o?, Xunicip~l Corporations, 5th Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1146-ll.47. See also, City of Eainburgh v. Ellis, 59 S. :I. (2d) 99. tTowever, we are convinced 

that such holdings will not be applied un:ualifiealy to contracts 

m&e by the State, considering the ltlrge nwn.Qer of State officers 

and enployees, their wisely ticctt~;red rer;ifiencc-L: im5 consquently 

reduze& liXcllhood of co.~lusio~ end double deeling. 
3on. Geo. H. Sheppard, PnGe 2 

In this cuse, the Texas Prison Doard does not mke 

the contract of purchase. . 

such purch!ases 

As stated in our Opinion Ko. 0-2&OS,!/ 

os t!ie one now involved are made by the Doara 

of Control, of l:zhich Mr. Dillord is not a member. i 

t’fe hive winy penal statute3 bearMS on soncr?hat 

sinilm +ostious, but nose directly coverinK the instont one. 

Art. XI), C. C., provider, that '1P*y officer of this State v;ho 

shall trade for, buy, or be in any viny conccrnod in the purchase 

of any claim or demand against the State, shall be fined one 

thousmd dollars.q* By Art. 371, P. C., county and city officers 

are prohibited from txadiug in claim cCainst such counties and 

cities. ,2nd, Art. 373, I?. C., provides a fine for 

city offioer who should becon;e interested in any 1 

a county or 

c htract with 

such county or city. Other related stututes are found in Ch. 6, 

of the Penal Code, but In our opinion none nppljr to this case. 

There WCS a statute, Art. 6171, Civil Statutes, vthich 

prohibited members of the Board of Prison Cognisoioners fron 

beinS directly or indirectly con.necteC withor interested in 

any contract, sale or purchase of any property or thing whatsoever which may be mde during his ters.of oiiice, and in which 

the Stute LX the prison system i:: interastefi," md mking the 

violation thereof a Ground for rcrlovul. Eut, that statute '$us 

repealed by the act shioh abolished the DoorC of Prison Comxiasiomss ac(i create6 the Texas Prison Poord. Act: 1927, 40th 

LeC.,.p. 29S, ch. 2113. 

T!?e rcpc:al of the old izticle‘GlP1, Civil Statutes, 

.;ihioh:,rYbren cuczted prior to the crootion Ci tbo Eoard of 

Control, r:nd the failure to cnan,t a similnr 15~; applicable to 

the Prison E03ra, to 3 cctrttiu mtcnt indicater: t.bc lfqislative 

thou[;ht as :c ?:hat tho public policy 3houU be. ‘.it;ti the authority 

to m'ce ::uch contracts 1ocCed in tho Marc! oi Control f,!lc Lesislature ev:.d: ztly felt that tha problt:iticn r;&nst the Prison Bomxl 

';jas no locC.cr necessary or desirable. 

In O'ir oj:inicr. 3contrsct zCr by th? Fo?rd of Control 

for the ~~~rchone of supplies fro= o- corporation, one of the 

officers of r:hlch !o .z a?ez.ber.of the Tcxnc Pri.%~? Doard is not 

?~lr se void 3s r: mttnr oi‘ 13~1. On that basis 7:s:~ m%::er your 

2uoytion ifl the ai:irmtive. Cur opinion rr.iClit b: different 

if it should be n::de to opprar that the Prison L!o?.rd zember his 

taken so~ie advantage 0;' hi3 position to induce t!lo piirchase fron 

the: concern in which he is intcrerted.