,



## THEA NEYGENERAI. OFTEXAS

August 10, 1951

Hon. George B. Butler, Chairman Board of Insurance Commissioners Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1234.
Re: Maximum salarieswhich may be paid investigators under Item 10 of the appropriation for the Life Division of the Board of Insurance Commissioners in House Bill 426, Act8 Dear Sir: 52nd Leg., 1951.

Your request for an opinion reads in part as follows:
"We desire the opinion of your office as to the proper interpretationof House Bill 426, Acts 52nd Legislature, Insofar as It relate8 to the maximum salaries of investigators ,forthe InsuranceDepartment. The appropriationfor these investigators 18 found on Page 112 under the heading Group 10 of the supplement to the House Journal. You will note that the Act provides for 4 Investigators,none of whose salaries shall exceed $3,320.00per year, but at the same time, the gross amount of $13,680.00 is appropriatedfor the purpose of paying these'salarles.
"Even if the salary of $3,320.00was paid to each of the four investigators, only $13,280.00 couldbe expended. It therefore appears that the bill contains a patent ambiguitywhich necessitates an interpretation looking to the legislative Intent. We do not believe that a vain act shouldbe attributed to the leglslature and certainly thiswould be the case if we interpreted this statute to mean that the legislaturehad appropriated $13,680.00 for the payment of certain salaries and had at the same time prohibited the use of $400.00 of thismoney.

Hon. George B. Butler, page 2 (V-1234).

toward the payment of such salaries. It Is the opinion of this Department, based on the reasoning which follows, that the correctmeaning of the term ‘none to exceed $3,320.00per gear' is actually 'none to exceed $3,420.00per year.' Your opinion is thereforedesired as to whether we are correct in our interpretationwhich would permit the payment of a maximum salary of .$3,420.00

annually to each of the four investigatorsprovided for."
In the exhibitsyou have attached to your request, it is shown that under the appropriationbill of the 51st Legislature for your department these investigators received a salary not to exceed $3,180.00 per year. With certain exceptionsnot here involved, the 52nd Legislature provided for an increase of 1% of the first $2,400.00 of the annual salary, or a total of $240.00per year, to all state employeesmaking $5,004.00 or less. This is evidencedby a comparison of House Bill 426 as first passedby the House of Representatives to its present form as finally adopted. If this $240.00 increase applies to the investigator6 3n question, their salarywould be $3,420.00. Otherwise, their salarywould be $3 320.00, which would amount to an increase of only $140.00.

We are'of the opinion that the salary of $3,320.00 set out in Item 10 18 an error and that it should read $3,420.00. The Legislature obviously in-

, tended to raise these employee6 to not to exceed $3,420.00,a6 evidencedby the total sum of $13,680.00 appropriated for Item 10, and as evidencedby the genersl increase of $240.00 to each state employee coming within the category of those embraced in Item 10. Also, the grand total appropriated for the Life InsuranceDivision is correctly computed only if the figure of $13,680.00 is used, rather than $13,280.00, which would be the total amount for Item 10 if the 4 investigatorswere to receive only $3,320.00 each.

The rule with regard to the correction of obvious legislative errors is stated in 50 Am. Jur. 219, Statutes, Sec. 232, as follows:

"There are, however,many cases in which it ha6 been regarded .properto correct legislative errors. In this respect, there is authority for the rule that clerical mistakes shouldbe disregarded, thatr’

Hon. George B. Butler, page 3 (V-1234).

manifest or obviousmistakes may be corrected,

. . . If a clerical error render6 a statute incapable of reasonable construction, the proper word or numeral willbe deemed substituted,where it canbe supplied by reference to the context or other statutes. This isbut making the strict letter of the statuteyield to the obvious intent."
In Morrison-Merrill& Co. v. Industrial Commission, 18 P.2d 295 (Utah 1 ) the Court in construing a formula fixings% wZ1; compensation applicable under a workmen's compensationact supplied a decimal point In the formula, saying:

II

. . . It is clear that in using the formula a decimal point shouldbe placed before the 60. Section 3137, heretofore quoted in this opinion,provides that the injured employee 'shallreceive 60 per cent of his average weekly wages,' etc. It Is obvious that the 60 in the formula is intended as 60 per cent. When it is obvious that there is a mistake or omission in a statute and the intention of the Legislature can be collected from the whole statute, court8will deem the proper word substituted or supplied~. 25 R.C.L. p. 978, % 227, and cases there cited."
A similar result was reached by this office in Attorney General'6 OpinionV-1117 (1950)wherein It was held that '1951"was erroneouslywritten for "1950."

SUMMARY

The maximum annual salarywhich may be paid to investigatorsunder Item 10 of the appropriationfor the Life Division of the Board of Insurance Commissioners

### Hon.George8. Butler,page 4 (V-1234).

InHouseBill~426,Act8 52ndLeg.,1951, la $3,420.00.

APPROVED: Wllllams.mtt StateAffairsDivieion
EverettHutchinson EXeCutiVeA88i8tant CharlesD. Mathews FirstA88i8t@It Yoursverytruly, PRICEDANIEL AttorneyGeneral

BYu3& ClintonFoshee Aselstant 

## CF: jmc