NE 

ltbo The right or the Count;l 

Judge to a oommlasloa on 

l rtual olsh reorlpts of I 

&uarUm when ha requlrd 

u **poror t* l ooountlmg 

es l rk reooipts duriy 

tro. (uaralaA8blp. 

DOas aim 

ZWomo ir m&e tQ your reornt rrque8t whloh 

rbAaA iA pwt wa f*llbwat 

*Tko @m8tlon h88 l rlsor wkothar or not 

t&o county Ju@o 18 wtithd to $ or l$ oomA 

c tkb S6llbwUtg raat sitmtloa: 

tly l otugl a88k rrorlpt8 0r the 

*Cvbq tbn 

l ppbl0tbd wbr 3 

oar8 l g q the uarilian wa s 

io 8ln0r Oh11 f ran by the 

0ouAty cburt~0r myat. C@uJltp, Toxao, and 

thb guardian 4uly qwririd at amil tlm 

.aWillb4 L&o' lwutory a&d a,#pr8iromrat, 

rklol~ ma 8ppr**d ate ad& t$mb. :Sinro 

that tlm ao'uurul geohmtly2 ar anything whatooivbr waa'~4om in 8816 guardlaa8kl)' kiatll tko guardira on Pooubrr 0, 1946, 

rim l briei report 8Wuli1~ thot~ klr ward8 

hd abw roe&h& tkolr rifoMtf, fikat ko had 

lolioeril a21 pro l rtlr8 to tkrm to whloh 

tnw wore WtlJ to UC ruaakd to sala 

riw report a rrlrare rrhm uid w&r (Lull 

l okwml*d*rd bf thei ia wkioi~ they too 8t8to 

tkat thy &vb rwbbd tP*Lr ,Wjority *ad 

&av* m&a 5 sr)loh oattlanbnt witk their 

oafa gtrrwa, arl 8p0bfr20aip release 

hia horr all furthor ll*billty bp vlrtuo 

ti Wu 4*r4$ana&lpe I8 thl8 ihal report 

bt t&o &a,' lu ~~thiu rhataorvor 18 sham 

a* to wh$ ?a a rot& oar& reorip%8 oi suoh 
Han, J. P. Hart, Page 2 (V-786) 

guardian were during such guardianship, 

I am herewith enclosing a copy of such 

final report of said guardian, to which 

was attaohed the release of the former 

wards 0 The Court acted on this final report and release of the wards thereto attached, and closed the guardianship, and 

fully discharged the guardian, All Court 

costs incident to this closing of the guardianship have been paid by the guardian with 

the exception that the question has arisen 

as to whether or not the County Judge fs 

entitled to 1 of 1% of the actual cash receipts of such guardian during such guardianship D Even though such final report of 

the guardian does not show it, the guardian actually did have some cash receipts 

during said’ guardianship,” 

The pertinent portion of Article ~3926, V, C. 

S “, is as follows: 

“The county judge 

the following fees:, 

shall also reaeive 

“1. A commission of one-half of one 

per oent upon the actual cash receipts of 

each executor, administrator ore guardian, 

upon the approval of the exhibits and the 

final settlement’of the account of such 

executbr, administrator or guardian, but 

no more than one such aommission shall be 

charged on any amount received by any such 

executor, administrator or guardian,” 

The case of Grice L Cooley, 179 S, W, 1098, 

1s authority for the proposition that the word “exhibit” as used in the above article includes annual 

accounts. It is also stated in the above cited case 

that: 

“0 0 0 By article 4186, R. S. 1911, 

guardians’ are required to present an annual 

account under oath showing, among other 

things s ga aomplets aoeount 0r receipt8 

and disbursements since the last annual 

aooount 0 s Upon presentation of suoh annual account, it is by subsequent provisions 

or the statutes made the duty of the then 
Hon. J. P. Hart, Page 3 (V-786) 

presiding county judge to conduct a hearing thereon, and, if he is autiafied that 

the account ie correct, it is his duty to 

approv s oame. Waving made it the duty of 

the county judge to approve such accounts, 

and having allowed a ree or one-half or 1 

par oent upon the ‘actual cash receipts’ 

shown thereby, it surely follows, it seems 

to us, that the oommissions are payable 

upon such approval, for the reason that 

they were aloarly intended for the benerlt 

OS the offleer perfoning the duty, e D O n 

In h. 0, Opinion Wo, 2692, dated May 19, 1927, 

the $UOOtiOB was asked: 

” 

rrom 162 

where a Guardian oclleate money 

io Deaember 31, 1926, during the 

Ex-County Judge’s administration, and makes 

no report to the County Judge until the present County Judge took office, January 1, 

1927, which one or the two judges is entitled to the one-half of one per cent? 

“Is the former Judge who looked after 

all the approval of orders cohvering deal8 

during the collection or i8 the Judge in 

office who has approved the exhibit8 entitled to the one-half of one per cent, 

Ho report was made during 1924, 1925, 

1926 as required by law, and none made 

until the present County Judge took office 

and required ft.” 

It wao held that the County Judge who required 

the annual asoounto to be filed end then approved them 

was entitled to the fee. In this opinion it la further 

stated that: 

vWe are aon8blous that the effect or 

thi8 holding is’ to deprive the %x-County 

Judge of compensation for a certain amount 

of labor perfonasd by him, but wo are less 

troubled by this when we take into oonslderatlon the faot that had ho enforced the 

provirlon8 of Chapter 9, Title 69 of the 

Bevisod Civil Statutes, he would have reoeived this compensation. We realize also 
Eon. J. P. Harf , Page 4 (V-786) 

that the erreat ,of this holding 1s to grant 

to the present County Judge oompensatlon 

for a certain amount of l.abor which he did 

not perform, but we ar8 less concerned with 

this because’ it appears that the present 

offlola did oompel the guardian to oomply 

with Chapter 9 aforesaid, and file the reports thereby required.” 

There we8 no annual account riled as required 

by law nor were any’ caeh ‘reiieipts shown in the final 

acoount. Zn view of the forego1 

Y 

it la our opinion 

that the County Judge 18 not enti led to the one-halr 

of. one per oent doiumi88~lon under Article 3926. 

,Where no annual dcaount’wa8 filed, and no 

aash reoelpt8 were ehown in the Sinai settlement of a 

guerdlenahip, the County Judge 18 not entitled to the 

one-half or one per oent commlesion under Article 3926, 

v. c. 5.; Grlae v, Cooley,,l79 9. W. 1098; A. G. Oplnion Wo. 2692. 

Youra very truly, 

ATTOBWR GENBRAL GF TEXAS 

ADOiOtant 

APPROVED 

BA:mw