. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

AUSTIN 

GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GROVER SELLERS 

NrrO.RNM GENERAL 

, . 

O$lQlOla an& ahllw aI to the proper procedure to 

pw5Uie uwler the olr0tmr6anaes. The pert 

fagts ?:’ la,the aewe may be CouM la lq 8.W. 

Berles 013 Patp 1089. !me olalm rubmittell to UI 

b 

f 

Hr. 2. B. Blokett, lawysr at Liberty, ‘Pexdia, 

a toraeJ for Mrs. )lartin et a1 1s enaloded herewith. Please return them to me vlth your opinloo.” 
8’7C 

The HfMlrrr uebe g~a 

&iln.t tb State of Team3 J 

ed permlariaa to ?@i~ rtilt 

w the mghuay agoltmemt 'Of 

the State of 2exas by Act8 W55, 44th Id 

21 The pertlaent sQotlons 0 % 

lrlatzare,’ Chapter 

lo I rot? 511* 

thini Act are an 

. . %a. 4. T&at proaera lo ewh suit say h 

oervdl upon the oovwoa oi Twas and the Elttorasy 

Qmural of Tsar 8~8 e%y &t@ment vhlch may be reooosred by reaao~ of, 'the promoutlon oi thlm au&b 

&all be oamble 5118 of’ bbe foods of the lilmy 
87’7 

Bon&able P. ,C. Cheer, fnt&b 3 

!I%8 XiM'tlar' rulb War Mae& otiU~~~~5d$/@;- 

g8Ms ‘or ti mghuey IM+Ptntunt. 

la this State that the State lo Mb liable for the tort8 or 

ncgllgsans ot it8 offloere or a@ats OF 8eymata eagsged 

10 the perforlilfmt8 ai a gowmlls5ntsl funotloo, utas55 it 

ha8 e~rersly l 88roLbd sugh llobtllty. 10 la Uso well wtt&b: that the lcwatloa, &e#lgartlon, ooamtruatiaa ud rule 

tenanm of Sbate hl@away8. b;r the Fll&?ay JWarbm8at a8 10 

wooy OS the at&be 18 0 

nalSiaplm7, 76 8.W. (24) 

vwmatu lutwtloc%. mate ** 

$8f 8tate v. Plovera, 94 8.U. (?cI) 

l93~ Brooks (I. Stat 63 

vs Sbabeb 88 SJ?. C%b) 

2J.Y; (RI) 534, wro~ rofused~ Martla 

41, 05ror r&mod. The doabplas ot 

raqmUerb s~rior -Qaw sob 

p" 

l vxil a@lart the 8wo~eligz~ 

ID the moortar rrsploymeot o pub110 amate.’ 'Ibo exmapblorr 

1. beti ~$08 the aOvwa$gn ohWa6tsr of the Jstata rod it8 

ugeaaler, aad upoa the abssme of obllgatl.om, aad nob on 

bhs grouua that 00 resisdy bar beea provided. SW State ve 

Plcw555, rupee. 

Therefore, the. lo 

Hartlo gzm rln to I&O Piab i 

~165 resulti in bh8 death cd 

llty agalaeb x5 state cul&55s 

the State ha8 expaw85l.y u85tmd swh l.iabillby. Slnab them 

uaS LIO gm8ral &if lo 4Sfa,4b at Ehe bum af thl8 i&jo%y a8- 

ruml~.81& llablliby, bhe questloa ar154a:uhebher Seqtiw 3 

of the Aot -0s. m5; quoted Umos, cw be eoPlerOrued a8 suoh 

aaallsapt 1QR.' 

“IS the AQt be omkstnmd a8,a 8gw!lal law, 

depolvlqg the state ai a deSenae 10 a partWutea 

oaw, 10 la uaaowtitutlowl an be1 

at Seotloa 3 of tbs Texas Bit ot Rl 3 

Vlt5WXWJ 

tii rkbth 

provider that all 5140 rbnll hw5 4~51 &Wr.’ 

It 15 5l50 vloletlv* of Artmle 111,~ s55Eloo 56, ' 

of OLW Sbste GoollOLtutloa,~ vhloh ,provlde8 btxib 

aa'loca3 or 'kpeelal lav &all be.Qrmroted i&We 

8 ~aeral Uv 4aO be We liQ&2ltOrb&. 'The Pu*- 

.wm.oi thir eoaotlButloaa1 tuhl+ftfon 4@rist 

t&4 ,c@ctsmab of local or 5$-5418X laur 18 a, obols503e ORea' It is intouded 00 prwttnE the woatlrrg 

of 5p44ial~prlvlle~58 and ta 844~~ utllformlty of 

hu ~througbout the State 88. far 68 pos8ibl.e. (

bllller v. El Pa50 County, 136 Fex. 370, 150 S+W. 

(pd) 1000, lGG1. 2% oc~bainly MS aot the int$otiw of tib* fraraere OS our CoasP,Ltutton that 
lion0 19ble 2. C:‘Groar, p0ge 4 

Cbs Btete rbauld hays arrtain QsPencea sgainst 

sosc) iad~oiduals, but not against otbera alarilarly altuatod. * 

ln rlew of Ch% f’aroi;oin~~, nsi&hO.r tbo dlstrlat 

court of Liberty CEountp, nor my other co&H, undar any alrcucmtanac,o, &ad juriodiotion to render thn judglaonf wbiah 

w48 rrnd4rod hero, and ttiorrsfore Chr judgment is rold in 

its antlmCy. Thn rulr has booa tbua rtated by the 3iprci.w 

Cmrt in hIthor v. Mttrrscrn, 27 Tax. 4918 

*Order8 or judgasnCa which the aouxt baa not 

cha powor unarr any olrmbarCmaos to make or raador 

of eaurao , aall ad, balm mull, tholr null- 

!zi’nmy br nseorbad In say aallrtsral proasodlna, 

whore they CLII rrllrd on in support OS e alala Of 

right. 

vhe aaae or an adminfatrrtioa upm t&3 aetata 

or o llvlng raan has alrasdy barn gl~cn 08 an oxaaplr of absoluts .aulllty of the pmcasEla&a of a 

probate aaurt, svan whsre svary 4Eep has beau taken 

with perfoot rsgularlty; and It ir ~11 to bsar la 

mind that in thls aaae the prooeadln&:s OS ths court 

axe absolrrtqly null, bowauec) the aa la act ana 

UPOO whloh ths eouy.t~ Ithe, the tiffht to dellbsra te, 

and not for any or;hex reraan.” 

Cf like erfoc? le Ckiujr fr Cowdan, 251 3. %. 622, 

writ rstueau. ‘iWe CYBB Involved. Q ti+ituntlon ahera 4 gumdim 

sjqliod for parnlssioa tii ox~laa1~3 hsr wmlta iana tor ~UA~B 

la another county. The oaurt gmitsd tha epplioatlon snd t&e 

d6t0as w6m axchangad. After ths serrda Barn of age, they brweht 

wit to umwsl tha guardlanla ~&ad snd to puliut title. TRo 

court aala: 

Vhs dssa sou ht to bs aanaslsd Is void boaaueo the appliart I! on af the guardlsa, ths order 

of the aourt, and the approval order, .-se wall 84 

the daod, lrhow that the probeEs court had not the 

power to euthorlze ths (gusrdian to sxohW$a ths 

land4 of tho wards. Therefor th4 or%ara war@ 

subjsct to eolletaral attmck. . . . 
Hondrable D. 0.~’ GreeP, page 5 

“The guardian Is nowhere authorized to exahange 

the lands of the wards by any atatuts, so the probate oourt aated in excess of its jurlsdlatlon, . . 

. .” 

Set;~also Commtinder v. Bryan, 123 S. w. (2) 1008. 

Sinas the judgment Is abaolutaly voici:; ft oannot 

oonstltute a valid olaim’against the State or the, State Highway Funds. Therefore, 

that Rouse Bill No. 826 

It 1s the opinion of this department 

is unoonstltutlonal beoause it,is In 

vlolatlon of Artlale III, Seotlon 44, of the State Constitution. 

We return herewith your file on thla matter. 

Very li.fulp yours 

ATTORNEYtiji3Bm. ’ OF TEXAS 

ALM:db 

b”nolo6urs