OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS 

Ron. Wayne lsfevm 

County XuQltor 

Clay County 

Henrietta, '2~x118 

Dear SirI 

on tha above stated 

all follow8: 

21 Of the State UOIlBtitUtiOn 

Tha above quoted provision of the aonatltution 

hes been construed as not preoarlblne: the duties of the 

Qlatriat attoruay nor any dutlaa ior aounty attorneys 

other thaa swh QB are required to be perfcrmod for tha 

state. Xor doss It gclve the county attorney authority 

to institute a proooaQL% unless he ia given that power 
Ron. Kayae Lefevre, Page 2 

by atatute. The tern *dutlesn aa used In the aonatltutfonal provision above set forth has been dealarm to 

aomprehend the further idea of power or authority; and 

hsaoe the county attoraey la aaid to have no authority 

to pexfoxm any aot in respeot to which no duty haB been. 

made to Qevolve upon hh Spencer ~8. Cfilveston County, 

56 Tex. 384; 7Cexl%r Ya. State, 241 SW 231; Eunoan vu. 

State, 67 SIT 903. 

T&8 respectire dUti8S of the dlatriot and county 

attorneys in arimfnal~prr~eQluge ara dealaxwd by~atatute, 

namely, Article 25-32, Code of Grim. Pm., lnaluslva. 

7he chief purpose of the constitution, in oreatlng the Ofif& of dlotrlot attorney and county attOn?ey, 

was to make it the r&n fuuctlm of these offioers to 

pronecute orlzlnal oases, es stated by the Suprerne Court 

In the 0880 of 3rady vs. Brooks, 29 I30 1052. However, the 

Leglolature has irm tLne to tine ooaferr8Q additloual 

dutlee upon the county and distrlot attorneys, but no 

authority 1s found in the stehutes that mylkes It the duty 

of the aouuty attorney to represent the county in ooudmnation pmoeediags in cases where the oouatp 1s eithr the 

plaintiff or the dSfendt?lt. 

On September 11, 1934, th5.a department held.ln 

effaot in an opinion written by Eon. Julius y. Franki, Assistant Attorney General, addressed to Eon. 0. C. Flshar, Couatp 

Attorney, Zan Angelo, Texas, that the oouaty oanralsaloaem~ 

court ha8 the implied Buthorlty as general mnager of county 

business, to retain private oounsel in tho proaeoutlon o? 

civil suits Involving county matters geaerally. And further holding that there are nc statutory provlsfana maklng 

it the duty of the oounty attorney to represent the couuty 

in ooademaation prooesdiuga or trespass to try title and 

in&motion suits, and that the oouuty ommlssloners* oourt 

wuld haoe the authority t0 epprOprist8 Out Of th8 g8118ti 

funQ o? the county to pay the attorneys hired to represent 

the County In auoh prooeaQln@. 

In the oases of Jones YS. Peltnan, 171 SW 2S7 ahd 

LattUnore vs. Tarrant County, 124 SW 2011, it was held that 

the ocmmlesloaers* court may lawfully employ the county 

attorney to represent the interest of their oounty in my oauae 
where such duty Is not enjolneQ upon him by law. 

You are respeotfully advised that it Is the 

opinion oi this departneat that the statutes lmpcee ao 

duty upon the oouaty attorney to represent the aounty 

in oondematlon prOa08di5g.8. You are further advised 

that the oamlslrlonars* court may coatraat tith the oouaty 

attorney to represent the county la oondeumtlon prooeedlngs And compensate hk as ger oontrsat. 

Trusting that the foregoirl(l answer8 your lnqulry, 

we l-Gain