OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

AUSTIN 

. 

~onorabls Gee . 

coz@roller of 

Austin, Taxis 

- 

ii.~ Oheppard 

fublio Aocounts 

GENERAL OF TEXAS 

i i 

.= .sup011 the dsath of a Conthat ruch pensioner had 

of hsr gonsio~~ ~arranie 

and hhd h&J. then, aocw.ulatinCf som $bOO.OO 

1. 

worth. 

uAr0 tb se w3rrnnCs 

tanca f os the benefit OS 

6ioncr?" 

n subjcot of inhcrithis Uaceusod pcnTh0 ansivor to’ your first quastlon concernlag the 

losuing of R duplicate warmnt to the heirs OS the .ripceesod 
snorPble Coo l a. tiheppard, Page 2 

;,np~cner is Controlled by our Opinioo Xo. O-2161,:i%1lt?h 

~AAA~, Ln part, a0 followe: 

“Your third question reads a8 follows: 

WI (3) IS the payee of a Confederate Pension Xarrsnt which has been 

voided by linitstion requests a dupliCRtc warrunt to be issued, is it 

modatory on the Ztzte Cozqtrollor and 

StGte ‘IXeasUrer to iS&Us SUCh dU?fiCutC, provided the necos~ary requiremnts for iz,:nuing du2l.icetc mrrmta 

are iwtp 

“In answer to yo*ur third question ooncarna;, whether or not it is madatory on the $tnte 

coz?troU.er to issue duplicate warrants on such 

uerranis which have been barred because they 

kerc EOt prusontcd witNo the tvio yam period, 

y2.z attention is called to :,rticlo 4366, Vzrwfi'8 iimotfited .'l.ril Statutes, which reads as 

~vLionn : 

.’ 

-1 I ;;1.t 

. 4505. The Comptroller, * 

when oatlafied thLlt any original 

vmrrmt drswn u_oon t& State Treasurer 

hi.8 been loot or destroyed, or when 

tiny oertificate 01' other evidence of 

indebtedness ap?rovad by the auditing 

bosrd or the iJt;ite ,tis been lost, is 

authorized to issue a dqlicato v;srrtir?t In lieu of t& ori@nil wurrsnt 

OX a du>lioate or r, copy of such certiriosts, or other evidence of indebtcdncss in lieu OS such original; but no 

such duplieatwvmrrant, or other evidence 

Of indebtedness, shall issue until the 

W,llicmt hcs riled wit!1 the Conptrollcr 

his affidavit, atsting that he is the 

true ovzer or such instrument, end that 

the SRZX is in ruot lost or dcstroyod, 

E to 

oil311 ol~o Sil.c vjith the Co?~gCrOllOr 

*’ ;it In double the mount OS the 

ci2l.n TiiCh t:qo or jlora Good and sUSSiciant 

nor, 

sureties, payable to the GOVCl'- 

to be npproved by the ComptrolLer, 

md Conditioned thnt tha agplicnnt vii11 
knorjblt Gbo. H. Sheppard, Page 3 

. 

l 

hold the State hamloss and return 

to the Goj.nptrollor, u3on demnd being 

aode t huref or, such duplicates or 

Co >lb E+, or the mount of money nxned 

therein, together with all costs that 

Sny aoorw agafnst the State on collectlng sam. A.fter tho itlsuanoo of 

@aid duplicate or copy if tho Coaptrcllar should ascortafn thnt the saze was 

fl?,,roporly Lxx.ted, or ,thnt the aypllCant or party to ~~ho.21 the 5s.w uas issued w’~is not the owner thmeof, he 

shull at once desanl the return of 

suid duplfcute or copy if unpaid, or 

the cmow~t paid oats by the State, if 

60 pald; end, upon f~tilurs of ths party 

to return swe or the axou~t 0.7 money 

Onlled for, salt shall bo Instituted 

up011 sali5 bmd- i’n Travis County. * 

“It is our ogdnion that it is xmdatory on 

the Gtuts Coaotroller and stata Tre;surar to IsSUC!l a warrunt, even th&h barred br;ccluse of l?Ct 

having bee:1 presented wlthin cho tvi0 year pEtriO&, 

mjrg be present& to ths Lc&slature who mul.d have 

the authority to order the mm p-2id.” (Unberaoorins OUXU) 

ft. ohoula be pointed oit as atate in the above 

quoted opinj.0~ “if the csnditions psovidsd in Artix0.e 4365 

hnvc barn c02pplied ;sJithtl, it is mudstory al the co2ptroZler 

to JESUS o. dugllc&tc yiarrant. ZOW~V~F, these coditiou6 aust 

bb follo~4 very e1ose1.y. The mera affidavit of one olaiming 

to bo ttb true o-,vRar, woo.la not in itself, be sui’ricient. 

Article 4365, ss~ra, ia coucj.ss language, places a duty upon 

the Colqtroller co first satisfy hinwl.f that th3 wcrrclat i% 

questfOR h:\s beea.lost or destroyed. The Grnot kUlgUAga Of 

the -tioh i:, aa ~O~OV~S: 
,+.g 

j . 

, 

mnorabl8 Gee. E. Sheppard, Pnge 4 

4114 

1 

i 

Under tho facts as s&ted in this question where 

8 period of seven yenrs has elapsed, oinoe the warrant8 

ve*e last aotually known of a nu:%bar of natural possibiliticzs arise. Th9 warrants in question mlight hirv8 been 

assigned, they could have been given as seourity fey e 

d9bt, Or diSSOSCd Of in any one Of sePera1 Ways. !?hs re- 

. puired uffidavit ohould of cour3c include all mttsrs that 

&ght throw light on th9 lost warrants, Eiozever, ~the stattms leave broad discretion in the hands of the Cornptrollsr 

and also oomaads him independently to satisfy bitiself as 

to the exact status of the warrent in question, it ri0ula 

be Within -his power to rofrrse to issue a duplicate warrant 

notsithstacding tha filing of -the bond and the affidavit, 

if he was not satisfied that the warrants in qu99tion were 

not assigned, pledged, or disposed of in BOLW proper and 

regular macner. 

In mcwer to your second question, w5 3b0uia first 

deternlne tho type of instrument and nature of such a warrant, 

In Taxaa Ztxisprudonce, Volume 11, p. 605, Sactio?l 118, we 

find warrant doscribed in this manner: 

Chile rrarru?lts are, in the ordinary form 

of commercial p&per, they do not povseos the 

quality of such paper, they are not negotiable 

instrumuts * * *.I* 

IIo~~::Bvcr, warrants z.ay be aosiSn9d and the assignee has ever 

right of the original payee. See Speer V, Stute, 55 S. W. 9 24) 

95, 123 T'ox. Cr. sop, 185; City of Bclton V. iIarri8 TLYl3t 

Wings, 275 S. Y;. 014, affirnad ES5 S. Vi. lG4. 

It is a vi911 sottlod rule that a warrant is evidence 

of an obligation oa the past of the State or one of its divisions to pay n certain ~~'11 of macy. Obligntious cf this 

nmm arc troatod as p9rnonal property nhd are the subject 

of inhoritancs~. !'~arrants, by th8i.r nature, Piould be Chiusifiod v;ith ot!mr non-negotiable obligations due the estate 

Of the decoaced. ,I 

You are theretors respectfully advised t&hat under 

the facts as you state thez, and provided tkt the statute 

in quo&ion is clomly folkmod, the Coiaptroller is authorized to issue duplicate Confederate p9n;lon Warrants; and in 

ahswor to youx second question, that Confederate pencion warrvnts are the suhjcct of inhoritcnco for tho beucfit of the 

dccoased ~nnior,ar (s estate. 

.r-- \ 

6 

\ 

. . . . . _ ..:. . . . :;,,;..'-'i So Yours very truly