### NE

ltboThe rightor theCount;l Judge 

### to a 

### oommlasloaon l 

### rtualolshreorlptsof I &uarUm when ha requlrd u **port*

or 

### l ooountlmg 

### es l rk reooiptsduriy 

### tro. (uaralaA8blp.


### DOas aim
ZWomo irm&e tQ

### yourreorntrrque8twhloh rbAaAiA pwt wa f*llbwat

*Tko@m8tlon 

### h88 l rlsorwkothar**or** 

### not t&o**county**

### Ju@o 18 wtithd to $ or l$ oomA c 

### tkbS6llbwUtg

## raat sitmtloa: tly 

### l otugl a88k rrorlpt8 

### 0r the
*Cvbq 

## tbn l ppbl0tbdwbr 3oar8l gq the uarilian

was io 8ln0rOh11

franby the 0ouAtycburt~0r myat. C@uJltp, 

## Toxao,and thb guardian 

### 4uly qwririd at amiltlm .aWillb4 L&o'lwutory a&da,#pr8iromrat, rklol~ma 8ppr**d 

### ate ad& t$mb. 

### :Sinro 

### thattlm ao'uurul geohmtly2 

### ar anythingwhatooivbrwaa'~4omin 8816 guardlaa8kl)' kiatll tkoguardiraon Pooubrr 

### 0, 1946, 

## rim l 

### briei **report 8Wuli1~** thot~

### klr ward8 

### hd abw roe&h& tkolr rifoMtf, fikat ko had lolioerila21 pro 

### l rtlr8 to tkrm towhloh tnw 

### wore WtlJ 

### toUC ruaakd to sala riw 

### reporta rrlrarerrhmuid w&r (Lull 

## l okwml*d*rd bf thei 

### ia 

### wkioi~ theytoo 8t8to tkatthy &vb rwbbd **tP*Lr** 

### ,Wjority *ad &av*m&a5 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 rhataorvor18 sham a* towh$ ?a a rot& oar&reorip%8 oi 

### suohHan, 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 0s Upon presentation of suoh annual account, it is by subsequent provisions or the statutes made the duty of the thenHon. 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:

vWeare 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 alsoEon. 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, ATTOBWRGENBRALGF TEXAS

ADOiOtant

APPROVED

BA:mw