Hon. D. D. Williams 

County Attorney 

Throekmorton County 

Throckmorton, Texas 

Oplnlon No. v-234 

Re: Additional Registration 

of Motor Vehicles, Article 6679-2, v. c. s=, 

and wfthholdlng of addftlonal wefght receipts 

by State Rlgbvag Departmen%. 

Dear Sir: 

Your request for an opfnlon reads in part as 

follovs~ 

‘“P oDoes an ovner or operator,of a commercial vehicle have %o pay additional weight 

fees fn the County of the owners residence 

when he 1s arrested for overloadfng in a countg other than that of such owner"8 residence, 

or can he proceed to the nearest county seat 

and pay such addltfonal weight fees. on %wo 

occasions fn the year 1946 duMmg the grain 

harvest season, State Hlghwa~ Patrolmen arBested and brought operators of commercial 

vehicles Into the Tax Assessor-Collector of 

this county to pay additfoual weigh% fees after the operators bad paid fines for overloading. In bo%h cases %he operators lived or 

resided In counties considerable dls%anc.es 

from here and the owners had registered %he 

vehicles in such dls%an% counties. The Tax 

Assessor-Collector refused to issue such addftfonal vefght fee receipt or receive the 

money therefor. 

“2 . Does the Tax Assessor-Collector of 

Throckmor%on Com%y, Texas, have the authorftg to Issue addftional veigbt fee recefpts 

and receive the money therefor on comer-elal 

vehfcles which were no% registered oHgfnally 

In this county but which are being operated 

in this county during seasonal work, such as 

moving the grain crops? 
“3. Can the State 

Motor Vehicle Dlvlslon, 

Hlghvay Department, 

limit the Tax Assbasor-Collector of Throckmo~r;o~ uoumy, Tbxaal, 

to ten (10) additional veight receipts, uhS.& 

vi11 only take care of five trucks with their 

trailers? There are sixty (60) trucks aud 

truck-tractors registered ins this county. 

Practically 811 of them will be required to 

pay additional weight fees during th6 coning 

grain narvest. The motor Vehicle Dltilsion 

of theState Highway Department has sent only 

ten (10) additional weight fee receipts tothe Tax Assessor-ColPectoP of this county and 

refuses to sena,any mom. It Is definite 

that this county iand the Assessor-Collector 

vi11 need more than that mmber of receipts." 

Hon. D. D. Williams - Page 2 

It is arsuma fop the purpcme of this opinion 

that by the use of the vord "operator" as contained in 

yatw first o_aes%iann W-w'& pm intend to deskgnate a per3on who comet wfthfn ~tbe atatu%org defhitfon of "ovnern 

as'deflned la Article 66750-1, Section (L), V%rwmy~ 

Civil statutes. 

Article 6679-2, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides In ppt as follows: 

"Ever ov ep of a motor vehicle, trailer or ZZi?? -tra + ler used orto be tied upon~ 

%h% Jwbfal."lo ?ai,#@l%wp of %MS sQil;e _-- &all a 

p& each pep to the ;tete l&g&p Denare 

- 

ment thrcmgb the Coum y'Tax Cal ector -- o? the 

Pin which he reaides for the registraion of each suchvmovned or contr'ollbd 

by him for the ensuing or current caleudy 

year or unexpired portion thereof e . . 

(mptmml ours) 

It has been re atbdlg held by the court& of 

thin State that Article f? 67p-2, V. C. S., requires an 

owner of 8 mcotos we::h%~c,,le 

of hfs resfdence. 

f2d\ 277 (Tex. Cfv. 

Previous oplnlons 

of.the Attorney General have been unlfbla in follovlug the rule announced in these decisions. See, OJ&- 

LOU 0 npyl dated February 14, 1940, and O~lnlon o-2950, 

dated-Ha& 18, 1940, enclosed herewith. 
Hon. D. D. Wflllams - Page 3 

The factual basis for your first question 

differs from that presented In each of the above decisions In only one particular. Under the facts stated by you the vehicle ovner ha3 registered hi8 vehicle 

in the county of his residence for the current reglstration year, but he Is subsequently arrested In a 

county other than that of his residence for operating 

said vehicle over the public highways with a ,total 

gross weight In excess of that for which %he vehicle 

was originally registered. The question $&,,s py3 _, 

serlted Is whether, the vehicle owner may apply for an5 

c;tain additional registration on his vehicle In the 

co~ntg where arrested, and where the vehicle is actually being operated, or must he obtain such addltP_ona1 registration in the county of his residence. 

We ,are unable to see ar-y distinetlsa "xtsroen the original reglstratlon of a motor vehicle 

by Its owner aad a subsequent registration of the 

same reMale for an aaal%l0na~ amo3ct in ,wro3s weight, 

~:;icle 66:5a-~, supra, expressly fixes t.56 si35 of 

registration as the county In which the owner reslde5< 

Ro exception is contained In the Act regarding subsequent and additional regfstrations w:.thin '"he current registration gear whereby the gross reglst-tred 

carrying capacity of the vehicle is Increased, LS<:- 

wise, nothing is contained in the Act authorizing 

the owner or operator of a motor vehicle, In case of 

arrest for underweight registration, to proc;eed to 

the neares% count:y seat and there, regardless of 

whether it Is the county of his residence, secure 

additional registration on said vehicle. 

The reason for fixing the sltus of reglstration as the county of the owner'3 resld9nce is 

clearly and tersely stated in M:ller v* Foard,, aupra, 

wherein %be court said: 

"Article 6675, R. C. S., repeeled 'before the transaction here involved occurred, 

permitted the ovner of a motor vehicle to 

pay registration fees at 'the office of the 

county tax oollector of the county fn vhlch 

he resides or in which the vehicle to be 

registered 13 being operated.,i 

"The omission of the language 'Or In 

which the vehicle to be registered la being 

operated' from article 6675a-2 . . . to-, 

gether with the provision of article 6@5a-1O 
Eon, D. D. Williams - Page 4 

autborfsing each county to retafn all regietpation See8 collected untfl the amount 

fop the eur~en~t year shall have reached me 

sum of $50.000. said sum to he deoosited to 

the twe~f%~aP its road amI SsrMge-frmcl, 

clearly maniSests the fntention of the Leg- 

~islature %o direct and monlre su~2tn peg& 

tmtion Pee8 to be collectedl by tbe,t.ax 

collector of the county in vhlch the ovner 

OS the vehicle lives. 

'"IS them s%a%utes Sal1 to accomplish 

sW?h Diii+w88. it fO_llOVs tk4t the PaadS Of 

gee county may be received and auuropriatecl 

bg another ooun%g." (Emphasis ours) - 

The reasoning and holding of ttme tour% fn 

%he above quoted portion of Its decls'lon appl9ea with 

equal force end effect to subsequent and additional 

regietratfons to Increase the amount of the authorized registered carrying oapcitg of a pan%icula~ motor vehicle. It was heretofore held by the Attorney 

@llePal ill ODi~fOQ x0. 0-3645 efELtt?d .~WS 1.4, @kb, 

%hg% a commeroial vehicle ,ownGd and regis%ered,bg a 

corporation fn the county of its domfofle, but actuallg operated fn another county, must be registered 

for an additional gross weight increase in the couuty of the corporation's domicile rather than in the 

county where the vehicle was operated. In this connection it fs fnterest"sng to n5%e %ha% the present 

Leglslsture has refused to enact a bill which vould 

expressly au%horllze the owner OS a motor vehicle to 

apply for and receive addltlonal weight registration 

Increases in a county other than that of the owner89 

residence. See, House Journal, Fiftieth Legislature, 

Regular Session, Ap~ll 1, 1947, pages 1233, X234. 

Baaed upon the above authorfties, and Sol1ovSng the rule announced in O~inioa Ro. O-3645, storm 

are advised that the ovner and oneerator of a'comms~- 

olal vehicle must apply for and receive from the ~tax 

collector OS the county in which the ovner haa MS 

residence any additional registration receipt increasing the gross reglatered carrying capacity of 

said vehicle, and this is true regardless of the 

place where the vehicle Is actually being, operated. 

In anaver to your second question, asd in 

connectfon wlthbur discussion thereof, we assume 
. 

. . - 

Hon. D. D. Williams - Page 5 

that the legal resldence of the owner of the motor 

vehicle was originally registered SOP the current 

reglstratlon year. Thls la in each lnsteime some.~ 

county In this State othevvthaii Throckmorton Couuty. We also assume that-the owner of such motor vehicle would voluntarily pay the additional reglstration fees to the Tax Collector of Throclbsorten 

County In the event he Is authorized to receive the. 

same, and thus thesole question presented in vhether said Taxi Collector has the authority to accept 

such registration fees. 

This question has been answered in de%all 

by the oourt ln~Mllle~ v. Foard, supra. In that 

case. one of the issues nscessary to the decision 

lwoived the liability of;cer%alk stieties on an 

'official bondfor registration fees collected by 

ths Tax Collector of Foard County in registering 

motpr vehicles belonging to residents In this States 

o$Ijer than Foapd County. In deciding this issue 

the~~court said: 

"The Texas authorities recognixe the 

rule which dls%lnguls,hes the liability of 

a surety for the acts of an officer for 

which they are liable and for acts r0r 

Which they ape no% Iiablez 

.~ . 

"'The former a& termed acts done 

"vlrtute officil," and the latter "coiore 

ofrlcll." The dlstinc%ion Is this: Acts 

dotie "virtute oSflcll"'are vhen they are 

vithln the authority of the offlCeP, but 

when doing it he exercises that authority 

improperly, OF abuses the confidence which 

the law reposes In him; whilst acts done 

n~olore offlcll" axe where they are~of 

such nature the office gives hl+ uo authorltg to do them.' Cold v~,Campbell 

54 Tex.,Civ. App. 269,; 117 9,. W,. 463, 468. 

” 

. . . 

We are not uumlndful of the rule 

which holds sureties on official bonds 

liable for 113egal taxes VmdiXle~I fees 

voluntarily paid, but the registratlou 

.fees in controversy were legal fees pay-~ 

able to the proper counties for their road 
Eon. D. D. Williams - Page 6 

and bridge funds, and -their collection by 

Que R. Miller was a diversion thereof, a& 

his acts in so doing wepa. not authorizedor 

sanctioned~by lav. Thes were not lllexal 

fees voluntarily vsld. bnt were legal fees 

unlawfully eolleatqd urde~~ the color of ofrice and not in the nerrormance 0s official 

duty. If this conclusion 1s correct, the 

appellant in this case was not responsible 

for the $5,221.12 Fegiswation fees collected by Que R. Miller Sromovners of motor vehicles residing in Texas but not living in 

Foard county." (Ruphasls ours) 

In our opinion the above decision is a full 

and complete answer to the question presented, and ve 

therefore answer your second question In the negative. 

Your third and last question relates to the 

power and authority of the State Highway Department to 

limit the number of additional weight registration receipts 1% has delivered to the Tax Collector of Throokmorton County for the current year. Bathing Is contained In the Pacts submitted by you~lndicating that 

the State Highway Department has refused to issue, by 

and through the Tax Collector OS Throckmorton County, 

an additional weight certificate and receipt to any 

actual motop vehicle owner who Is a resident of Throckmorton County. Therefore , your third question la llmited to a determination of vhether the State Highway 

Department OF the county tax collector is to have the 

final authority, as betveen the two, In determining 

the number of additional weight receipts to be delirered to the tax collector. 

Artlole 6675a, Vernon's Clvll Statutes, places the duty of motor vehicle registration upon the 

State Highway Department. When the county tax collector"acts, either ln the original registration QS a vehicle, or in the issuance of addftional registration 

receipts increasing t'he eu%borized gross registration 

weight of the vehiole, he acts onPy as the agent of 

the State Highway Department. 

Article 6675a-2, supra, expressly provides, 

in part,as Sollowa: 

II Shall aDDly each year t0 ttlC? 

State Rlihvag Department through the county 
Hon. D. D. Wllllams - Page 7 

tax collector. . . ." (Emphasla ours) 

Article 6679-12, V. 0. S., provides, 

papt, as,followa~ 

IU 

"The DMartment shall iiiae. oi cause 

to be issued, to the owner of each vehicle 

reglstered.Wder the p~ovfelons of this act 

a license receipt which shall Indicate . . ." 

~Emphaals ,ours) i 

The Act also provides for the application to 

be made to the county tax collector who 1s the 

one authorfoed to Fecelw the license fees provl "91z ed la 

the Act. (Buphasfa 0~~s) 

It will be observed froin the abow quoted 

p~oo1slons of Artldle ,6675a, aupra, that the appllcation for registration la made to.the State Highway De- 

.par%meitt, which Is .to lsaue a license receipt and lltense plates. This Is also true of appllcatloas for 

additional registration weight receipts. The Act.places the 'dizt;r on f&e State Highway Department to receive 

the applications and issue th;e license receipts. It IS 

evident throughout the Act that the tax Collector la 

merely acting as agent for the State Highway Department 

In receiving such appllcatlona and laaulng license receipts. It,is likewise evident from a reading of the 

entire Act that the dut7 of enforcing the provlsloaa 

of the Act is islpoaed upon the State Highway Depsrtmeat. 

Bowhere ih the Act la it provided whose word 

is to be final in case of dispute between ~the taxi collector end the State Highway Department aa to the number of'addltlonal r8glstratlon weight receipts to be 

dellv-eped to a particular county and the number that 

meg be needed. It is true that the Act taken as a 

whole probably contemplates that the tax collector la 

to Issue additional reglatratlon weight receipts upon 

applieatlons received by him, but at the same time f% 

fs also contemplated that the tax collector will not 

fssne such receipt8 to a motor whlcle owner who is 

no% a resident of the county, or who does noti otherwise come within the Pequlrements of the law. 

We ape unable to find any authorlity which 

authorizes the State Highway Department to refuse to 

furnish additional weight receipts, or other fows, to 

any county baaed on a supposltlon that the %ax collectop of the county will violate the provisions of the 
Hon. D,. 9. ,)Jllll~p - Page 8 ‘::. 

IUO%OP vehiCl8 P8&4%ra%lOn laWs. On the other hand, 

the State Highway Department, being chaPged with the 

duty of, proper enfoPcemen%'of OUT reglatra%lon laws, 

certainly has the right and ,duty to supervise the work 

of,l%a agen,%s In such a manner as to prevent any vlolatlons of %h8 law by Its agents. We know that the 

Highvay.,DepaP%ment does, as a matter of pPac%lCe, from 

time ,%o'time check the registrations of differen,t counties and suc,h checks In many Instances disclose vio1atLona of the law. 

Inasmuch as the Act places the duty of the 

enforcement of the Act on the State Highway Departmen% rather than on %h8 tax c!ollectoP, acting in the 

capaCl%y of an agent for the DepaPtment, it Is OUP opinion that. any dispute as between the tax collec%cr 

and the Dei:zP%men%, aa to the number of additional 

reglstpatfon weight receipts a particular, county Is 

to receive, should be &ecld@ by %h8 Department. 1% 

was previously decided In ODinion No. 2050, dated 

March 10, 1940, that in any dlspU%8 as to the par- 

%lculaP classlfiCa%iOn Of a vehicle as between the 

tax collector snd the State Highway DepaPt4nen%, the 

final authorftg would rest with the Department. The 

reasons ateted in that opinion apply with equal foroe 

to OUP hoidlng on the instant queetlons. The authority of the State Highway Department la conneotlon 

with this question ie aa between the State Highway 

Department aud the county tax oollector, and nothlng 

herein shall b8 constrmed as prohibiting an appeal to 

the courts of this Stat8 by a motor vehicle owner 

from a decision of the State Highway 

fuelng an additional weight receipt. 

Depar%aent reSIRMARY 

1. The owner'and ' operator of a commercial mbtor whlole must register said 

vehicle for additional weight lnhreaaes In 

gross oarrylng oapaclty in the county of 

the owner'a resldenoe ra%her than In the 

county where the vehicle Is in actual operation. (Following Article 6675a-2, V. C. S.) 

2. The county tax collector of Throckmorton County Is no% authorized to Pesceive 

registration feee and Issue additional weigh% 

registration receipts therefor on commercial 

whicles owned by the eeldent of another 
. 

Hm. D. D. Wllllama - Page 9, 

counts, and originally mglatered la th8 

countr of the owner'~ residence. 

Yours very truly 

',A~ORNJ3YGERERAL OF TEXAS 

-. 

Charles D. Matham 

Assistant 

Enclcsurea APPROVED: 

ii&& 2d 

ATTORNEY GENFXAL