The Honorable Neal E; Birmingham’ 

Criminal M8trict Attorney 

Box 555 

Linden, Tera8 

Opinion No. H- 334 

Re: Whether County Commir8ionerr Court m8y contr8ct 

caith the brother of 8 commirrioner to purch88e peroline. 

D44r Mr. Birminghm: 

Your requart for our opinion concern4 the propriety of 8 county 

purch88a of Lual from 8 corporation an4d by the brothar Ot on4 of tha 

county commhrionarr, in which the commirrioner own8 no interart. 

You have 8dvired u8 8nd’your county commirrionerr t&t, in your opinion, 

it ir not illagal for thr commiorionerr to purcl-4884 fubl fr.om 8 corpor8- 

tion ownad by the brothar of one of tham. You hw4 cited l numbsr of 

A rtorney Caner81 Gpinion8 8nd p8rticd8rly Opinion O-2856 PPIO), in 

which. it 188 88id. with reference to Article 3’13, V. T. P. C. : 

The 8bova rtetute w88 eoartrued in Rigby v. SWe, 

by tha Court of Appalr, 10 S. W. 761, in which it 

~88 daclar8d that trudfe8tly. the kgi818tUr4 in 

c~cting tha rt4tute, intended thareby to protect 

counti48, citie8 8nd town8 from offici81 pecul8tion. 

Whathrr 8 commi88ioner ir ‘pacuni8rily interarted 

84 ths t4rm i8 urcd in the 8t8tUte. i8 gen4r8lly 8 

quartion of f8Ct. A8 dirclored in your r4qu48tl the 

bU8in488 i8 owned 8nd opar8tad by the commirrioner’8 

brother 8nd it doer not rppe8r that the commirrioner 

i4 pecuni8rily intera8tad in nuking ruch purch88a8 44 

8gant a[ tha county. 

. . . 

p. 1667 
The Honorable Neal E. Birmingh8m p4ga 2 (H-354) 

it i8 theraforc tha opinion of thi8 deprrtment th8t it 

i8 not illegrl for 8 county commirrioner to. purch884 

emergency 8Uppli48 for cOn8trUCtiOn and r4p8ir Of 

county ro8d8 88 8n rgant of the county udder 8uthority 

of the court from 8 brother who own8 8nd opar8te8 8 

bU8in4!8, where the commirrioncr ir not pecuni8rily 

intererted in the contr8ct. 

Article 373 of the Pen41 Code ~88 repe8led with the eluctment of 

the 1974 Panel Code (Act8 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 399, p. 883, Sac. 3). 

Nothing h88 been clucted to rebl8cc it. 

Howavar, w4 8ra of th4 opinion tb8t the .rt+tament of Opinion O-2856, 

quoted 8bovc, 18 rtill 8 correct rtat8mant of 18~. Article 373 of the Panel 

Cod4 W88 (8nd,i8) nOktha Ody 8t8tUt4 8p48kiing to Conflict8 of int4re8t. Art. 

2340, V. T. C. S., r48d8: 

Bafora antaring upon tha dutier of thsir offica, 

the county judge 8nd 48ch commir8ionar rh811 take 

the officiti oath, 8nd rhell 8180 t8ke 8 writtan 48th 

that ha will not bs directly or indirectly int4?88ted 

in 8ny contr8ct.‘with, or &iti bk8in8t. the county 

in which.he r48id48. axcapt ruch w8rr8ntr 88 m8y 

i88ue to him 88 facr of office. E8Cb commi88ion4r 

rh811 aracuto 8 bond to ba 8pprovcd by the county 

judge in tha 8um of three thou88ird doll8r8, p8y8ble 

to the county tra8rurcr. conditionad for the f8ithfui 

perform8nce of the dutiar of bir office, th8t he will 

my ovar t0 bi8 County 811 money8 ill4g8lly paid to 

him. out of county fundr, 88 volunt8ry p4ymant8 or 

otherwira, 8nd thet ha will not vote or give hi8 con8ant to p8y out county fund8 arcapt for 18wful purpo444. (Emph414 4dded) 

Conflict4 of jnt4r48t or potenti colaflictr, am r4gti8ted by numeroum 

othar con8titution81 rnd l t8tutory provirion8. Sea, for axemple, Art. 3, 

p. 1668 
Tbe Honorable Neal E. Birmingh8m p8ga 3 (H-354) 

Sac. 18. Conrtitution of Taur; Article 988, 6252-9b, 8nd 6447, V. T. C. S. 

Furthermore, the rule againat 8 public 4erv8nt hrving 8 benefici81 

intereat in 8 contr8ct with hi8 &overnmentd entity eXirt8 88 COmmOn 18W. 

10 McOuillin, Municip81 Corporrtionr, Set 29.97, p. 467, quoted in 

Delt8 Electric Conrt. v. City of San Antoaio, 437 S. W. 2d 602 (Tax. 

Civ. App., S8n Antonio, 1969, err. ref’d., n. r. e. ); 2 Dillon on Municip81 

Corporation4, 5th ad. p. 1140 quoted in Attorney Gener81 Opinion 

WW-!362 (1962); Meycrr v. Walker, 276 S. W. 305 (Tax. Civ. App. i 

Eastland. 1925, no writ hirt.). And 444 Cryrtrl City v. Del ,Monta 

Corporation, 463 F. td 976 (5th Cir. 1972). 

Unlike the nepoti8m rt8tuteo (Art8. 59968. at req. , V. T. C. S. ), 

the diaqualific8tion do48 no,t extend beyond the rt4te amployec himself. 

Normally, whether or not he ha8 8n intarsrt would be 8 quertion of f8ct. 

Howaver, thbe mare r418tiOn8hip of two brotharr ir not, in 8nd of it84lf. 

l officiant to ertablirh the prohibited int8rert. 

Therefora, arruming it to bc true th8t no county commirrioner h88 

an intcre8t. direct or indirect, in ths corporation which 18 owncd by tha 

brother of onc of them rnd which ii tha proporad rdlar of the fuel, WC 

find no b88ir in rtrtute or 8t common 18~ to find the contr8ct intilid. 

We refer you to tbc 18~8 raquiring bidding for tha pureh8re of 

rupplie4 by 4 county. Articlar 1659, 236& 8nd 6716-1, V. T. C.S. And 

884 Attorney Caner81 Opinion M-403 (1969). 

SUMMARY 

Aoouming complienca with 811 18W4 da8ling with 

the bidding for the purchera of ruppliar by 8 county, 

8 contr8ct to buy fu81 for 8 county m8da with 8 

corpor8tion in which 8 comrdrrionar’r brother 

own@ tha majority of th4 8tock, 18 not void 8dely 

p. 1669 
The Honor8ble Ne8l E. Birmingham page 4 (H-354) 

b4C8U84 Of tha f8milw ?41l8tiOlNhip wh4n th8 

Commi88iOIL4r h8 110. illt4?88t in th4 fruit8 Of 

the contmct, 8ithar direct or indirect. 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Cimirman 

opinion comlaitt44 

p. 1670