.
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 aewemaybe CouM la lq 8.W. Berles 013Patp 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 HfMlrrruebe g~a &iln.t tb State of Team3 J ed permlariaato ?@i~ rtilt w the mghuay agoltmemt 'Of the Stateof 2exasby Act8 W55, 44th Id 21 %

The pertlaent sQotlons 0 lrlatzare,’ Chapter lo rot? 511* I 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 8~8e%y &t@ment vhlch maybe reooosred by reaao~ of, 'thepromoutlon oi thlm au&b &all be oamble 

# 5118

**of ’**  **bbe foods**  of the lilmy

## 87’7

Bon&able P. ,C. Cheer, fnt&b3

!I%8 XiM'tlar'

rulbWar Mae& otiU~~~~5d$/@;- 

### g8Ms ‘or ti mghuey IM+Ptntunt. la 

### this State that the 

### State lo Mb liable for the tort8 or ncgllgsansot it8 offloereor 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&?ayJWarbm8at 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 doabplasot raqmUerb s~rior -Qaw sob p" l vxil a@lart the 8wo~eligz~ 

### ID the moortar rrsploymeot o pub110 **amate. ’**  'Ibo exmapblorr 1. 

### beti ~$08the aOvwa$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 Hartlogzm rln 

### to I&O Piab i~165 resulti inbh8 death cd llty agalaeb x5 state cul&55s the Stateha8 expaw85l.y u85tmd swh l.iabillby.Slnab them uaS LIOgm8ral &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 5140rbnll hw5 4~51 &Wr.’ 

### It 15 5l50vloletlv*of Artmle 111,~ s55Eloo56, ' of OLW Sbste GoollOLtutloa,~ vhloh ,provlde8btxib aa'loca3or 'kpeelal lav &all be.Qrmroted i&We 8 ~aeral Uv 4aO be We liQ&2ltOrb&. 'ThePu*- .wm.oi thireoaotlButloaa1tuhl+ftfon 4@rist t&4 

### ,c@ctsmab of local or 5$-5418Xlaur 

### 18 a,obols503e ORea' It is intouded 00 prwttnE the woatlrrg of 5p44ial~prlvlle~58and 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~bainlyMS aot the int$otiw of tib*

fraraere

OS our CoasP,Ltutton thatlion019ble 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, &adjuriodiotion 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 CLIIrrllrd on in support OS e alala Of right.

vhe aaae or an adminfatrrtioa upm t&3 aetata or o llvlng raanhas 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 CYBBInvolved. 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 I!

appliart on af the guardlsa, ths order of the aourt, and the approval order, .-sewall 84 the daod, lrhowthat the probeEs court had 

## notthe 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. 826It 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 ATTORNEY’

tiji3Bm. OFTEXAS

ALM:db b”nolo6urs