‘. OFFICE OF ‘PHE A?TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUcrIN 

Boaorable Julian bZontgom.rj 

State Hi 

!I 

hwa$ Engineer 

Auafin, “OXa 

1940, Sor a supplemental opl 

eartin, Ina. You refer UQ t 

ton on this olalm, which or1 

questionl 

h W, B. Pope, Aaefstant 

6 above request adrlsed the Hon. 

lnear, that the Stats of Texas 

1937, the shove opinion was reoonsiderfiid 

ho Eonorabld W. B, Pope, and he again 

ua that you have oonsidorable data and information in your files relative to this claim, but in view of 

the raot that we cannot detonnlne quostions of faot wo will 

not be oonoerned in this opinion with that Information and will 

~oonfine this opinion to the iaots ea set out in the original 

request and the tinding of the Board ot Arbltratlonr 
8011. JUliaIt ~Ollt~Ollhy, &‘fl&O 8 

Tho ~usstloa to be dsternlncd 4s whathar tho Stnto of 

T:oxne 1s liable for the ootli of fto aeento vrt:on actlnC outaide 

the eoope of thalr outhorlty, such autb@rity bQ,ing conferred 

elthor by law or by acntreot: Thora it ncthlnc in the etntutoe 

that t&o fort& tho powero arid duties eEte.i?.iG:)oot en&-Inear or 

inspootor. h nlll, thefoforo, disouoo tbo Guoeti,cn only me It 

porialna to tho outhorlty and ymor oqnforrod by oontrcot. It 

;a ths genorul rulo thst when a Stats .ts a parby to a eontreot 

with e altlton, it la subjoot to al.]. and svory ooadltlon eovsrclag oontraots with ladividuale. Uortlok WJ. U. E., 94 D. 2. K5; 

hsadlne &ml Co. ts. U. 9., ZM3 U. 6. 185, 69 L. L,d. 9071 

Crook VB* u. s., 91 U. S. i%l9, E3 L. Rd. 037. But thicr rulo is 

subject to oartain oxcaptlono, Sor if the State undertcok to 

guaruntoe tha tldollty of lta agent6, it .would Boon bcocm 

in~ol~.pob in tha ondleoe o~barraoonent, diftloulty cm4 100808, 

which would bo oubvorniro to pub110 Intorest. ztory on kcpaoy, 

GPO. 319. In tho oaeo of Clodselter Vn. Ztota, 00 f!. Carolina 

64, 41 m. Rep. 440, Chloi Zuatloe &ith tiuotos with approval 

the, folloutlna : 

Whet the dootrine of rospondaat OUpQriOr, 

applloablo to tho relotlon of prlnclpnl ond ny;cnt 

oreatod betwoen other pmnona, does .po,! pravall 

acalnat the oovorelgn in tho noosus~;ry omployznnt 

of pub110 aeonto, 1s too well oat 

end praotlce to n4dt ‘0s oontrom k * 

lnd iqzo~ authority 

djY”‘^’ 

Vo govcmnont hcs aver held iteolf 11.eble to individuaia for tbo mlformnoo, leohso, or umuthorlzod 

- oxeraisc ~~~~~~~- of powar by ito otfioere md 8~oa~8.~’ 

16 ours) 

I 

Ae rovcolcd by the r’o6uaot, the con-plaint 18 for noto 

oomlttod wcutaldo of a ‘oontrectia It 10 ~ioll sottl.od let; ttnt 

statea onn be bound only by nuoh oots me ore oonr”crrsd by lclw ’ 

or by tha contmot. The zest reosnt oaso that bears on the quoo-. 

tiou 10 that of Com?boll Eulldlna CO. VU. Stete iioed CODZI~SS~O~, 

70 FCC. ,(Zd) 057. ‘~ht3 r0110d3g quotction0 818 tak00 mffi WITmotions indicated: 

*Go thank that the enginoor hod no outhorlty 

to h-elva on behalf of the atato the roCuirbaonto 

in the witton aotitroot., iio undoubtedly hod no euthority to enter into e now or dlfforcnt oontmot, end 

it would follow that he bed no authority to nelvo the 

provision8 inthlr, one* Tha oontraot aptt0iri.0a what 
lion* Julian iontgomery, Qogs S 

hfs dutlco nnd 3owar8 wore nrd this we0 viol1 known 

to the ccntrnctor. At 18 @clsro y hl!L d mat 1m 

architoot or an&vasr In oharce OP construotlon work 

Qooa not have outhorlty to waive a prov,Islon rspulrlng written extra work ordam.” ;3ubooatIon E2. 

*Uo otata o¬ be’h&l ior tho cota or its 

qngfacor boyorld tho powers ccnCorrc4 by laar or 4he 

wrlttfs corGraot2 ~ub8octIon i!2. 

Vhe etate cannot be hold for any auoh aotlonn 

by Ito cniployees, even If true, for the rooooa that 

It OUT. bo hold only on the ccntrnct end for tho cots 

or ito a~3nts end ot~fioinle purnutrnt to th* cc-.ntracfL 

end not Car uny unauthorized cr ~:;a.liciouo ccnciuct, 

vhlch my have resultod ,in domge.” tiulmootron 50. 

(UnCcraoorIng ours) 

In tha 0088 of Clark County 

Stats Iilahway Cocmisslon, B8 8. c’. 

Ccnstrtiotlon Company vs. 

the Court said: 

(q!Aa3qk,, .(ct. of pppa. iip.) 

#ti . . 50 f%kt thero IP ‘a groat oontrarffy and 

confusion of oplnlons reapootin~ som phoma of the 

pueotlon prssontod, howover, thore iD yructloal acre+ 

tent of authority that nnrono who doale or ooutracto 

sltb tiubllc officials or with sub110 b&loo :zuet at 

h1s ok p>rIl take notice of th,ir cutborlty nlnce they 

W&O; only vrithln tha limits of ‘~-sF~~)owY~ or nooi y irqG.iod poiioro cu:)r’errod up2n ttiw by Icw.~ 

c iihnre it Is required by atntuta that ouch 

cont%‘sholl be in wrLt:ag and the controot Itnelf 

provldoa that any modIliontIon of its tormn shall be 

in writing, ouch provInIon8 am cmCet.ory and cl1 

ohangoa find ultcrotione aro lnotfectual and void. 

Ckppollont In dsalinc nIth the Cor&soioner oi 

Yubllo bonds rzao not only o!larcc& tilth knaxb%l~n of 

the law end of any and all lleltotlccs plaood upon 

his pco;or to make or r.odffy the contrect, but the 

guotod provisions or tho contraot 1tqol.C brought 

notIoe to It that all aodlfloatione, altorotlono end 

chansoa ohould be In nritlng. rhoGO provfafons,uro In 

lancuaee 80 olmplo, olenr and orplloit that QVQI~ a.layman by cursory sxomlnatlon would be sblo to fully 

understand and appreolata tho ooneoquoaaeo or a dlrrrdggrd or vlolatlon therOof@ 
Bon. Julian L:oontgomery, page 4 

“The foroeoinp rules to which .&&all adhere 

are nelthor harsh or .inoqultablo since nnyono doal- 

-inn with public ofl’lcinlo or publio bodl ca ma y ovofd 

the oonsequsncos by strict com.pllnnce with them. 

‘hey are moundad in a somd pub110 policy anti their 

abrogation would invite fmud, collusion and uniiarranted expcndlture of pub110 funds.” (Underscoring 

A oomprehonslro dlecuaalon of tne effect or an.ageat 

aotlng out&da the eoopa of his authority la found Inthe oaaa OS 

hbum vs. State, 141 Pac. 314; the SuPreme.Court of tho State 

of Washington hold aa iollovve, 

“Their (the englneer’a) powere are only such aa 

ara usually possessed by mere supcrvlaing engineare 

and archltects;.tbat la,, to 8ee that the contract 

entered into by the ownor with the contractor la Droperly carried out. 

agents of the state. 

They are In no sense contracting 

heading the, allegations of 

annellont*s comolaint and the provlolono of the cont%ot and speol?lcatlona together, we think that 

appellants olalm na hero pleadod amounts to nothing 

more than that the engineer, and poselbly the highway 

commlssloner, verblally requlred,the pcrfonnnnce of 

this alleged extra work. Clearly, this would not 

bind the state to-pay for suoh work, even concoding 

that It Is extra work wblcb the contract contemplated 

might be paid for if ordered In the mannor therein expresaly provided, .ln view of the fact that neither 

the highway com~lasloner nor tho cn&m?n possessed 

the Dower to blnd the state In any other manner than 

that-which the contraot Droscrlb?~ +.G:Xt. I.3 also plain 

from the aliegaq Eiona of the complaint that the work 

wa8 not direated to be done aa extra stork, but was 

directed to be done by the engineer and claimed to be. 

work within the contraot nhlch was to be compensated 

for by the payment. of the lump Burn bid. If, a8 a 

matter of fadt, the work ma extk”nork vflthln the. 

terms oi the oontraot which would call for extra 

oomp9nsatlon, and the, engineer or highway commlssloner 

arbitrarily decided that appolianta should perform 

such work aa a part ‘ot his oontraot, such Saot night 

bo oause for appellant retualng ,to ao perform It wlth- 

:out forfeiting ~hla rights under ,the oontraot; but. it 

~uoulti not foll6w that appellant could reoover 
. 

ROD. Julian 'Pontgomary, pace 8 

eompaneatlon for such work sftor#performlag 8m.e 

when it wee not directed by the i\l~h.r;cy oozmioelonor 

in the manner prbeoribod bp the oontreot. ;i,e do not _ 

think the alleeatlcns of the oonplaint show that the 

atate hlshway board, the atate’s oontraoting agent, 

in any manner dlreotcd or suthorlzed the performnco 

of any uork othor than by the express terms of the 

6ontreot .w (Undersoorlng oure) 1 

It 18, theraforre, our oplnlon that the Stoto of Texas 

1s not liable for the sots of lte agents which are ooaslltted 

. outalda the sgope of l oontraot nhlohtsete~S+h their butler 

end authoflty. 

Trusting thet'the io’regolng i@ly answer@ your inquiry, 

~urari’ 

Youre rery trily 

t. .I 

Assiotant