c OPY 

Zsnoreble L. D. Eatliff, yTr. 

County Attorney 

Dickens County 

Spur, Texas 

Dear Sir:' Opinisn No. O-3138 

i?e: Conpensat;ion of the county 

judge for presiding over 

the Commissioners' Court. 

Your recent request for an opinion of this department on the above stated,subJect has been received. 

We quote from your letter as follows: 

"The Cowty Judge af Dickens County, Texas 

has requested me to secure from your Depertment 

an opinion concernifig his compensetion for presiding over the 'Comndssioner's Court, and he 

has prepared, and I hand you herewith, a brief 

on this question. 

your 

"For your information I~have a copy of 

opinion No. 0-lC17." 

Your brief reads as follows: 

Vlease give us an opinion of the~following ^ statezent or acts: 

"Dic'kens County is s. county of 

(7,SG4--parenthesis ours) population acccrdizg to the census of 1940, EM its officers 

ore psi;? on a fee basis. Is the county 

judge thereof, who receives a salary of 

$lEC.CC per month for the county, entitled 

tc additional compensation for &se_? (?iy that 
:Icnorable L. D. Datliff, Jr., Page 2 

he actually serves as chairman of the 

Commissionersq Court thereof? 

Section 3 cf Article 3926, H. C. S. as hmended, 

resds'as follows: 

"*Tar presiaing over the Commissicners' 

Court, - ordering elections and making retilrns 

thereof ,.hearing snd deterrinirg civil 

causes, If any, and transacting all ot,her 

official business not ctherwise provided 

for, the Cou.nty Judge shail receive such 

salary frc:i: the County Treasury as the 

Co:~%iseioners* Court may allow him by 

order, payable monthly from the general 

funds of the county, provided, that in 

counties~ having ~$290,000,000.00 'assessed 

valuation, or more, and which have established therein institutions for the care 

of both dependent and delinquent boys 

and girls, the County Judge shall receive 

as ex-officio salary, not to be accounted 

for as fees of office,~and,in addition 

to all amounts allowed under.the b5aximum 

Fee Bill, the further sum of #3,000.00 

per annum, payable monthly out of the 

general funds of the county.' 

":le are well aware of your opinion No. O-1017 

which states that the County .~- Judqe of Willacy 

CouIlty, who was receiving $195.00 per month kxofficio, was not entitled to an additional fee 

for presiding over 'the Commissioners* Court. 

"It is to be observed however that in 

the case of Nillacy County the County Judge -ijould 

receive in ex-'officio the sum oft $2380 per 

year which is only 320.00 less than'the total 

of ;;2400.00 provided for in Article 3883, 

sec. 1, K. C. S. as amended. 'VEEFXAS the County 

Judge of Dickens County will receive in 

ex-officio only .$19X0 for the year and his 

fees of officr; together with the ex-officio 

~511 no? net hi.12 '"140Q.00, .+ therefore the situation 
Bonorable L. D. Ratlifr', Jr., Page 3 

in Dickens county is different from that in 

'iiillacy County. 

"Article 3926, referred to above, read.s 

3na can be interpreted the same as Article 

2450, R. C. S., 1895, which statute was ccnstrued;~and t.he scr;e Guesticn raised in that 

case as is now under ccnsideration. In that 

case and construction, namely, Farmer, 

County Treasurer vs. Shaw! 93 Texas Reports 

43S-445, Chief Justice Gaines held that the 

County Judge is entitled to additional compnsaticn for presidi~ng over the Com!tAssioners* Court, etc. As far as we can tell 

t,his case has neverbeen overruled, and in 

spite~of the fact that the reading of the 

statute has been changea some, no material 

alteration has beer? mtide and the construc- 

,/'. 

.*.. tion is similar d.s to the point under consideration. It is our opinion therefore 

that the rule laid' dozn by Chief Justice 

Gaines in Farmer, County Treasurer vs. 

Shaw, should apply to Dickens County and 

that t.he opinion of your Department Rumberea O-1017 is not in conflict because of 

the exorbitant ex-cfficio salary allowed 

in the case',of Viill~cy County." 

Article 3895, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, 

reads as follows: 

"The Commissioners1 Court is hereby debarred fror:. allowing compensation for.exofficio services to county o~fficiels when the 

ccripensationan~d excess fees which they are 

allowed to retain shall reach the maximum 

provided for in this chapter. In cases 

where the compensation and excess fees which 

the officers are ailolved to retain shall.not 

reecti the maximum provided for ins this chapter, the Commissioners' Court shall allow 

cor;pens~ation for ex officio services when, 

in their judgr;;ent, such compensation is 

necessary, provided, such compensation for 
Honorable L. C. Ratliff, Jr., Page 4 

ex officio services allowed shall not ihcrease the conpensation of the cfficial 

beyond the r!a.xiakm cotipensaticn and excess 

fees aliofied to be retained ‘oy bin under 

this chapter;. Provided, however, the exofficio h;creir. authorized shall be allmed 

only after an opportunity for a public 

hearing end only upon the affirmative 

vote of at least three ker;:bers of the COD 

L3issioners' Court." 

The only statute now in force referring directly 

to compensation for a county judge presiding over the COD 

missioners' Court is subdivisicn 3, Article 3926, supra. 

We have carefully,considered the case of FarEer 

v. Shaw, 93 Tex. 43S, 54 S:W. 772, 55 S. W.~l115, but do 

not think that this case governs or controls the questicn 

here icvolved. 

In the above menticned case the court had under 

consideration Articles 2450 and 2466, R. S. ,1895, Article 

2450, which authorized the Ccmissioners* Court to allow 

the county judge a salary for ex officio services, read 

as follows: 

"For presiding over the comissioners 

court, ordering elections and making returns 

thereon, hearing and detemining civil causes, 

and transacting all other official busioess 

not otherwise provided for, the county judge 

shall receive such salary fron the county 

treasurer as ;;iay be allov~ec? him by order of 

the cormiseioners court." 

firticle 2466 read as follovm: 

"Zach county commissioner, and tee county 

judge .&en acting as such, shall receive from 

the county treasure:, to be paid on order of 

t.he cozziseicners court ~, the sun: of three 

dcl.lars for esch day he is engaged in holding 

a teri;; of' the co:izissioners court, but SUC?_ 

comzissicners shall receive no pay for holdihg zore thaa one sy~ecinl term of their court 

per niohth." 
Honorable L. D.Ratliff, Jr., Rage 5 

In discussing the two above mentioned stxtutes, 

the court said: 

n 

. . .s 'Be do not think there is a conflict 

between i.hese two statutes, and it is apparent 

to us that the purpose was to allow the county 

judge an extra cor;;,7ensaticn as presiding officer of the coiznissioners csurt, and that by 

virtue of article 2466, he should receive 

cotipensstion as a ;neGber of the cozzissioners 

court. That article expressly includes the 

county judge as entitled to three dollars a 

day as compensation v&en he is engaged in 

holding a tez of court. By virtue.of the 

constitution and the statutes thereunder, 

he is made a member of the coszissioners 

court and the purpose of the law evidently 

was to entitle him to compensation for the 

see services .rendered by other coinmissioners, 

and additicnal compensation for presiding 

over that body. The. legislature evidently 

thought the county judge, as the presiding 

officer, was burdened with more duties when 

sitting with the coaissioners court than 

the commissioners, and the purpose was evidently, by article 2450, to allow him some compensation for these extra services. Viewing 

the two sections of law in this way, we think 

they can be reconciled. .~ .." 

At the present, we have no statute such as Article 

2466, supra, specifically providing a certain coqpensation 

for the county judge when presiding over the Commissioners' 

Court. It is true that Article 3926, Vernon's Annotated 

Civil Statutes, contains, substantially, the same language 

as Article 2450, supra, but, as above stated, there is no 

statute such as Article 2466 now in force and effect. It 

is evident from Tour letter that the county officials of 

Dickens County are compensated on a fee basis, and in. 

addition to the fees of.office, the county judge receives an 

ex officio compensation of 3160.00 per month. We think 

that Article 3895 and Article 3926, supra, must be considered tcgether, and it must be keRt in mind that it is 

the established law of this state that "an officer nay not 
, 

Konorable L. D. Ratliff, Jr., Page 6 

claim or reach any money without a law authorizing him to 

do so, and clearly fixing the amount to which he is entitled." 

34 Tex. Jur. 511. In other words, an officer may not _. _ _ . _ claim a fee for a particular service rendered unless,the 

statute has prescribed a fixed fee for said service. This 

is the rule;even though the fee or compensation fixed is 

unreasonable~ or inadequate. An officer may be required by 

law to perform specific services or discharge additional 

duties for which no compensation is provided. 34 Tex. Jur. 

pp. 530, 531. 

The $160.00 monthly ex officio conpensaticn allowe,d by the CorcJissioners' court compensates the county 

judge for presiding over the Commissioners' Court, ordering elections and making returns thereof, and transacting 

all other official business not otherwise provided for. 

Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it is our 

opinion that the County Judge of Dickens County is not 

entitled to additionalcompensation for presiding over 

the Commissioners* Court. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your 

inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORXZY GEBEML OF TEXAS 

By S. Ardell Williams 

Assistant 

AW:GO 

APPROVED FEB. 15, 1941 

S. GERALD C. Iv&E 

ATTORNEY GERERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION COUWCTEE 

BY S. EW'B, CHAIRMAN