:

**OFFICE dF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

6.P” February 25, 2939

.-

12. CmAos c. Ashley Dm~ic~tAtorney

, De3r sir: 'c\

but **da** to beotlCb3s

Your lstter Attorney C3nsral GS to ttie

writer. er or not Eemr aasassor-co&? **3adrt333ea** to

on as towh6thfmxa its sbrfffor deputy hire, **68 app,pliea**  for. he sheriff-assesptie,s

### unaerautLo;oritp aer cna later hired adahdtticmal deputies r tha ori&.nalthree

isworthy oi cnroful consid- .

not got been cle,3$02 R.C.S.,us.Our108 C. Ashley, February 25, 1939, page-2

application shall be accoxpanlea by a stateiiient

shovllucthe probable receipts frm fees, comlsslons ana corrpen6atlohto be COUeotod by aaid Offi dUri6g the flsoel year cod the probable disbursements which 

## 8hd.l inOiua8all salarias

## maexpm366 Of YiIia OffiCO; aa SE&i OOUrt shallmke its order authorizing the appointment 

## 0r such ~depUtb36, QSSiStIXlt6 ana ~elerk6aud fix the compensation to be paid thtxawltbin the linitationa herein presoribea and determine the nunbar to be appointed as in the dl6crotlon of said court may be proper; provlGoa t&t Inno aose 6hI.X~ the CO~zaSiOn~s' COuXt Ormy mOi3- her thereof attozzptto influence the apPOiIltMlltOf aBy pel?SO?l a6 deguty, &SSiStaIlt or 01&c in any offioa. Upon the entry of such order-the offioars applying 

### for such assistants, da&ties or,olerks shall be eutlmrizedto apgolnt theta;provided that Said 

### ooqxmsation siiallnot exceed the maxlmm amount hereinafter set out a‘* * ,?
In this instance, the Cacunisslonors~Court dldauthorize the expenditure of the amount pala, but didnot authorize the payment asmae. You have not stated in your letterwhethor or not the C&osionerd Courthas taken.any action on the annual rqort of tb officer,whioh my be of oontrolllng inportauce ineffw.%inZ the rl3hts of the comty. 'The sheriff8saoesor-collcotor hadno authority to anpoint depu

### tics,except by the prooeduro as outlined in the e!:ove Article 3302. Further, he had no authority to 8zroe u-&n or to pay a less zuiountto *e origlual three deputio6 than as autl;orlcedby the Cozmlssioncrs*Cart order. :.~2rylcmcl Casmlty Coqany vs. The +itc, 107 S,..:.

(2d)035. The C~~ssloner3~ Court may subsequently .:tlfy tkt IlziPCh it ;'*ly



## h3Veauthorlmd ori;-,%ally. 3,lihoretl~ ComLosiomrs* Court a:,provosthe&!r. ca.rlOS C. Ashley, February 25, 1939, Z&e 3

the expenditures ln the annual report or tie oSSlcer i
as to paying d8putie6 not authorized to hnve hem ag

## ptit8a., the county Is bound as having authorized the deduction. Tho'Stato OSTexas vs. Carries,106 2.3. (2a)397; Camron countyvs. Pox, 61 ~321, (2a) 403. fIo?mvcr,whom more than three years had elapncd aSter the a~pointmnt und paymnt of an unauthorized deputy, nhere tbsre was no action of ogproval token by the CocmissloUers~ Court, and though tho County Auditor had allowed the paymzit, the county was not estopped, i but 00ua rocover. Tarraut County ~5. Smith, 81 S.P. (2al 539. i

We believe that ,th8procedure inArticle 3902 above Is properly construed us a cadition preceaont to a county officer*8 right of appointment of deps~W~& and hi6 rip;htto deduct the armunt of dquty

il‘ 8 reoo@ize that any e~cndituro for deputy hire iot au authorized 0xpenditu-Pe&ves the couuty a right to recover. Ikm3vsr, In this instants, it appears that the expenditure was authorized, thou& the ag?ointklentsw8ra cot authorizedi Z:odo not beve suffered an 1niiWyfor i i -~~~-li~~ey-i~~~o~~~~~iaaa to i '%iiidhave been different / . i BW-tbe 0fSloer appropriated the zoney to his own use or otlmr use than deputy hire. Thor8 ~olildnot be any question as to the county having lost its right ~ 1
to'assort the olalm, in this instance, v:hcrethe Comrninsionme~ Court has agprovcd the auditiny,and set-. tllng of the offlo8rts account; and IS the Comiission- /

or@ Court hw mae no approval of 8xgcnditures to / the additional deputies,':ia believe that the violation OSArticle 3902 ?louldgive rise to the basis for a s.4.tin the violation OS a lec;al~right,but the theory of dammahsque InjUria Vould preclude a recovery. In othc-r words, ;.cmrc?.

Co:,~lty

has not bocn out fore t:ian the $X00.00 a::pqved 0~;:,enditxire, nU cf ::!iioh

we3 ex- .pendedSor deputy biro.

'iie zro not c:;:lod~

upon to datomine the liability as bctwcn the offiow and original d8pUtie6. Fuxtlier,the Stnto ofTe.x~snot bein< 3 party to this.i'

u. Carlos C. Ashley, Pebrumy 25, 1939, Page 4

propos0d suit and In llau OS tbis pnrtloular nitmtionnot havine been previously detmhoa inthe courts,OUT opinion can only bo an'abotrnct otatomnt ofthe applicable km iindshould constitute 

## noauthorityfor any action.

Be1iovlu5 this to answer your inquiry, are Yours very truly Wt3

::ob

.