September 18, 1952 

Hon. Henry Wade 

District Attorney 

Records Building 

Dallas, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. v-1522 

Re: Compensation of the Co,unty 

Auditor for services rendered improvement districts. 

You have requested an opinion on the following 

questions: 

"1. Can the'Dallas County Auditor collect compensation for services to improvement districts under the provisions of Article 1672 (V,R.C.S.)? 

"2, If so, must the amounts be paid into the general fund, or may they be retained by the County Addltor as compensation over 

and above his regular salary?" 

Article 1672, V.C.S., provides: 

"The county auditor shall receive for 

&is services In auditing the affairs of such 

districts, LImprovement Districts/ such comensation as the commissioners court may 

~~~s~~i~;;, which shall be paid by the co,unty 

e general fund and repaid to the 

county by such districts by warrants drawn 

upon the proper funds of such district, In 

suoh counties which have or may have as many 

a8 five such distticts, the compensation allowed the county auditor for his services 

on behalf of such districts shall be not less 

than the sum of twelve hundred dollars per 

annum, to be prorated among the districts 

In such proportion as the commissioners co,urt 

may determine." (Emphasis ours) 

Article 1645, V.C,S., prescribing the compensation to be paid county auditors in counties having a 

population of 35,000 inhabitants or more or having a 

tax valuation of $15,000,000.00 or over, specifically 
. . 

Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (V-1522) 

states that its provisions shall not repeal or affect 

Article 1672. S.B. 119 Acts 47th Leg., R.S. 1941, ch. 

601, p. 1331. Therefore, it Is clearly the Intention 

of the legislature that the county auditor should receive both the compensation provided in Article 1645 

"for his services to the county" and the compensation 

provided in Ar.tlcle 1672 "for his service in auditing 

the affairs of such districts." 

Section 61 ~of Article XVI of the Constitution 

of Texas requires all district, county and precinct officers compensated on a salary.basis to pay into the 

county treasury all fees collected by those officers in 

the performance of their duties. 

(1952). 

Att'y Gen. Op. v-1460 

If the compensation provided in Article 1672 

constitutes a fee or commission within the meaning of 

Section 61 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas, 

the county auditor would be required to turn the money 

received into the county treasury.~ However, we believe 

that the compensation constitutes a salary rather than 

a fee of office for the following reason. 

In Greer v. Hunt County 249 S.W. 831 (Tex. 

Corn. App. 1923) the Court discus&d the distinction 

between salary and commissions and stated: 

The controlling element in 

determinikg'whether the amount to be received is upon a commission or salary basis 

Is whether that amount, by whatever name it 

may be called, Is absolute and fixed regardless of what the lawful commissions may be, 

or Is made contingent upon earning that 

amount as commissions." 

It is noted that the compensation provided for 

in Artiole 1672 is not dependent upon fees or commissions 

but is set by the commissioners' court at an absolute 

and fixed amount. 

Therefore , you are advised that the commissioners ' court Is authorized to pay the county auditor a 

salary for services rendered to improvement districts of 

Dallas County governed by Article 1672. 

SUMMARP 

Commissioners' court of Dallas County 

is authorized to pay the county auditor a 
Hon. Henry Wade, page 3 (V-1522) 

salary pursuant to the.provislons of Article 

1672, V.C.S., for services rendered lmprovement districts, in'addltlon to the salary he 

realizes under the provisions of Article 

1645, v.c.s., for services to the county. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney ffeneral 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

E. Jaoqbsoti 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

JR:am