OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

l&q 89, 1939 
Hon. ?%rks Z. :.'cElchael, ?.!a~ 29, 1939, Page 2 

or vote for, or ooafimi the appointment to 

ady office, pooslt.S%m, olerkehlp, esuploymont 

or duty, of any person related within the 

seocmd degree by aitinlty or within the third 

deffree by oonsangutnlty to tho person so eppoint in& or so voting, or to any other mew 

ber of eny such board, the Legislature, or 

court of whioh suoh person so appointiq ar 

VOti~8iay be (L rsmber. when the 663tUFy, 

fees, or ooqmmatian af uuoh appointee la 

to be paid for dlmtly or .ipdireatly out 

4f or from pabiio ihaas 4r r486 of ofdoe 

4fanykbdaroberaoterwbat6o8ver."~ 

&Mole so1)8, i?e~%fmiI Qlrll statutes of ?exa8, 

lnp4ut,mdse8follous:, . 

sa id applbetlan a h & bl e l a o o a p a deb 

bf astatmm%t eaaringlih6prc+b6blwre66lpfrr 

fZB8 f6fB6, OU6d66iOM rad Ow tian tth b 

oolleoted by said dfY%oo dB the f&m&l’ 

year and the probabls dl6bur6me r&h&oh shall 

fnOhide f&l 6ehdeS Md e.xpeMe6 Of Se&d 

offloe; and said oorrrt &ml& make its ‘order 

atihorizlng ~the appo&ntroont’of 6-h &putle~~~ 

assistan end olerhr and flrtbe otn7onsatfua 

to be paid theu ulthia the Ua&ation% herein 

prescribedam bet- tba noabartobe 

appoInted a6 In ,tha Qisoretion of said wvurt 
Hon. Farke E. l:W:ichael, Way 29, 1939, Pege 3 

horef.nefter aet out. The oompeneetlon which 

say be ollo3wd to the awputiea, aaoistmts 

or alarks above named for their 5omico6 

shell be a reasonable one, nat toeeroeed 

the rollouing tXUOUU&6t.r..* 

Thiede~~~+~&heere~~ruledthetti. 

appolntnent of a relative of the ocul66lo~~~rs* aourt b7 

another oounty otiiaer as a deputy is uot in violatlgn of 

ths pepotleei leu and that the feot thet the,a&eioneret 

ootmt sets the ntimber of deQutl66 to be appointed does 

uoteaouuttoa aonflmmti~ofth~aypoinWatt. 

On Februa~ 9, 1938, tbi6 

eu 0phla0 by HOD. R. 0, Wat4r6, 

eml, that it was not a .tloletloa 4f. the aepot%a. 

a tp x o ellea to or l gpoiut a6 hlr Msbtent 4r d6putr.a6en of a aouuty aadeelener after the ocml6slonar6 

eoPrt~druthoriedlthsappolotPsnf~of~h6~~7 in 

l aoordauoe with Artl6le %9OS, R-4 Civil 8tatUte6 of 

Tew. 

OnIkroh 6, l%S,'thl6 depu'tamittheld in~6iL 

oplnloa by ROD. 0. a Kennedy; Ibsl6t6ut Attorney (knanl, 

~ad~y~eriiiib616aiirot.ocwsinoimcbth4 

%ia&er6 ot the Od66iC6W2’6’ oourt utdd not be ~X'Ohibited~ 

fmsa ser vinas g suo h a r dlb h il s ppolotaeat bythe 6h6rlff 

+10&tethet6m6 of *lole4SS,F6a6l CodeofTexu,or 

the allomuae of hle'eelery by the oaral8eioaere* court 

ooastltute a vlolatlon oi such nep6t&66 Zaw boaau6e the 

oomtqlssldnere* court did not eppolnt or rote for or aontirm 

Ti,,nt of ey,dsputy ahsrlff. 

On September 21, 1935; this dewmtment held in 

au opinion by Hon. Joe J. Aleup, Aesletant Attorney General, 

that a perwh related to $ho oounty judge in the prohlbftive degree mar serve a8 deputy clerk end the faat that 
Hon. Parks 6. FoC'ichael, By 29, 1939, Page 4 

the cat-z&?isloners* ocurt sets the number of Geputles 

to be aprointcd does not amount to a conflrrmtlon. 

This dwpartment hold on Eeaember 29% 1936, 

in en oplnicn by Ron. Wllllem ~~oCrew, Attorney &mere1 

of Texea, that the erpointnwnt of an uncle of one of 

the zmzbcre of tho ccumlsslcneret ocurt a8 e:mistant 

dl?frict attannep wns not a violation of tha nepotieni 

1s~; cf tlw state of Texas. 

On Jul7 6, 1939, thie departwait held in an 

oplnlon by Ilan. Ji H. Broedhuret, Aselstent. Attoraa 

General, that eppolntment of a relative of the OC6I&6lOU~ 

arat ocurt by another oount7 aiiloer ee a deput7na not 

in vlolatlon of tlb8 nepotism 3aw. 

U&rtheprmUlans ofhrtloleS902, Revleed 

Civil Statutes the crow&y ortioer dealrIng deputlea, 

make8 ~tbe ap&etlon outlined lq slad .ertioleg thh ; 

eommbalonirrs* oourt for the authorrlty fo 

dept 166. Fit 

to appoint to the oYfiaV aul seta.the aa&r7 ba@m' 

The ocamls614amrs* wurt graat6 

appointment is mida. Tbb~eOImitWIi0WT8' OQU&h6a6 

authority to attempt to dealguete whcen the offloor ahell 

&TO: end is apeoIfieally forbidden to do w'b7 thle 

appaiu&. 

9%eocsim%aelonwa~aourt dcesnoteellrirrtge 

IBanallerto7ollrrirlwtqtraa%lan,Jou~irera6peotfullyadvl6edth6t it is the api6bn ofthi6bp6rtrent that it la aat a vloletlfm 0r the wpotlm law for 

the dletrlat olerk to appoint a deput7 dlstrlot alerk 

who if3 a sister of the eating eqmty judge ab the eount7. 

You are furtherreapeatful37advlaedthet It iethe apinion of this department that in aueh @ease the eomlaslonera* 

aourt does not ocnflrm the appolntetent. 

Bllth rer'erenoe to pour second questloni fou ere 

respeotfully advlsad that this departwnt hes repeatddl.7 

ruled thvt relatlcnshlp by aff'inity Inaludes only the reletlonshlp of the husband to his wire's blood kindred or 
!lon. %x-k6 E. ~?clr'lohasl,'May 29, 1939, Page 5 

relntiviskip cf the w;ife to the hur;bcnd*n blood kindred, 

cm? that. person related only by affinity tc the husbbnd are net related to the wife and vioe.versa phrsons 

reInted only by ailinity to the wife are not re i atcd to 

thr: husband. We respectiully rerer you to the opinion 

of this department. written February 16, 1918, by &xi. 

c. A. Lwoeten, Assistant Attorney General. 

kffinity is the tie wl&h exists between one 

member of' a marriage and the blood relations oi the other 

member; it arlsee in aonsequenoa 0S a marriage. 8 W 

fur., 300.40. i 

There i8 no atrinlty botwoon the nlibrun of 

both the husbandandrlra, such aa abrottir M$&hu6- 

baaa and a .alstor ai the wlfk T%la is tor&kd?by the 

the wife of litigant*8 8Qn lma not related 'by dwnlty, 

to the tit&at ts .alnqllalUy liia from sitting in the 

bBUB9. lUlllam~ ~6. Fr#tSr, 2SS SW lZOT 

On SeptaOmr 26,1998, this deparkarat lmM 

in anoplnlonby Hod, R. f.Oray. Assistant Attorney 

General, that a dlstriat olork oould not employ amhi 

deputy the wife of hip wife.8 fatbe, aaid wife not kirig 

the mother of the We of the dlstrlot olerk, and would 

be in the prohfbltivo degree mad the same affective relatlmshlp by.nW3,nit.y: l'hls opinion is hersby axpromly overruled and vithdrrrro, 

You are therefore respectfully adrise that in 

answer to your stoond question it. is the opinion of this 

department that-the dlatrfot clerk ia not related by 

affinity to h1.e s8ep-mother-in-law. You are Surthor reepeotrully advised that it la the opinion of this depnrtsent that the difstriat olerk would not violate the nepotism 
the 1~ in en?loying MS mid stop-mthcr-in-law as 

his a.cpty. 

are 

2ustin!- that tI?ls nnfiwers year inquiry, we 

Very truly yours