, 

THEA NEYGENERAI. 

OFTEXAS 

August 10, 1951 

Hon. George B. Butler, Chairman 

Board of Insurance Commissioners 

Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1234. 

Re: Maximum salaries which 

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 interpretation of House 

Bill 426, Acts 52nd Legislature, Insofar 

as It relate8 to the maximum salaries of 

investigators ,for the Insurance Department. 

The appropriation for 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 $3,320.00 per year, 

but at the same time, the gross amount 

of $13,680.00 is appropriated for the purpose of paying these'salarles. 

"Even if the salary of $3,320.00 was 

paid to each of the four investigators, 

only $13,280.00 could be expended. It 

therefore appears that the bill contains 

a patent ambiguity which necessitates an 

interpretation looking to the legislative 

Intent. We do not believe that a vain 

act should be attributed to the leglslature and certainly this would be the case 

if we interpreted this statute to mean 

that the legislature had appropriated 

$13,680.00 for the payment of certain 

salaries and had at the same time prohibited the use of $400.00 of this money 
. 

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 

correct meaning of the term ‘none to exceed $3,320.00 per gear' is actually 'none 

to exceed $3,420.00 per year.' Your opinion is therefore desired as to whether we 

are correct in our interpretation which 

would permit the payment of a maximum salary of .$3,420.00 annually to each of the 

four investigators provided for." 

In the exhibits you have attached to your request, it is shown that under the appropriation bill 

of the 51st Legislature for your department these investigators received a salary not to exceed $3,180.00 

per year. With certain exceptions not 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 $240.00 per year, to all state employees making 

$5,004.00 or less. This is evidenced by a comparison 

of House Bill 426 as first passed by the House of Representatives to its present form as finally adopted. 

If this $240.00 increase applies to the investigator6 

3n question, their salary would be $3,420.00. Otherwise, their salary would 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 evidenced by the total sum of $13,680.00 

appropriated for Item 10, and as evidenced by 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 Insurance Division 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 

investigators were 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 .proper to correct legislative errors. In this respect, 

there is authority for the rule that clerical mistakes should be disregarded, that 
r’ 

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

manifest or obvious mistakes may be corrected, . . . If a clerical error render6 

a statute incapable of reasonable construction, the proper word or numeral will be 

deemed substituted, where it can be supplied by reference to the context or other 

statutes. This is but making the strict 

letter of the statute yield 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 compensation act supplied 

a decimal point In the formula, saying: 

II . . . It is clear that in using the 

formula a decimal point should be placed 

before the 60. Section 3137, heretofore 

quoted in this opinion, provides that the 

injured employee 'shall receive 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, court8 will 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 Opinion V-1117 (1950) wherein 

It was held that '1951" was erroneously written for 

"1950." 

SUMMARY 

The maximum annual salary which may 

be paid to investigators under Item 10 of 

the appropriation for the Life Division 

of the Board of Insurance Commissioners 
Hon. George 8. Butler, page 4 (V-1234). 

In House Bill~426, Act8 52nd Leg., 1951, 

la $3,420.00. 

APPROVED: 

Wllllam s. mtt 

State Affairs Divieion 

Everett Hutchinson 

EXeCutiVe A88i8tant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First A88i8t@It 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

BYu3& 

Clinton Foshee 

Aselstant 

CF: jmc