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

Hmiorable Riohard C. 8&ui oounty Attorney warhlngton 

## county Branham, Texae 

### /\ ‘
mar set Attenblonr Julian h.V&h

mquestinCf an opus1 material pOrtiOnB t

# 1. i

Honor?bla Richard c, zpinn, Fego 2

-+ + ‘I would 

### l

ppreoiata your oifloe felldorlng an opinion 

### as to what amountwould be proper an4jurt ror Washington county to pay

### on the abovr mentioned oort bill as oomprnsatlon to the Commissioners

.” Seotion 10of Article 3284, Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutea, provides:

When renlce of notloe has been perrootsd, the oo&miesIonerr shall at the tlnn an4 place appoInted or at anyother time andplace to whloh the hearing maybe adjourned, proceed to h?ar the part1ee.m SeOtlon 3or Article 3266, 

### Vernon’s Fsvleed Civil Statutes, provI4ss:

“Co55I&3sIoners shall reoelve for their se?- vloes three dollars for each day they maybe engaged in the performan of their duties, and may withhold their decision until their fsse are paid.” Art.1010 3267 of such statutes, relating to the award of costs, provldee:

*The oosta of the proceedings before the oomuilsslonere and in the oourt shall be determined as tollowe, to-wit: It the oomalselonere shall award greater damages than the plaintirr offered to paybeiorr the prooeedlngs oorcmenoed, or if objectiona are tiled to the deoislon in the county court under the provlalona of this title, andthe jud&rient oi’ the court is ror a greater sumthan the amount awarded by the oommissionerr, then the plaIntitS shall Payall oorts; but if the amountawarded by the oomalssionero as dama.es or the judgment of the county court shall be for ths sameor leee amountof damages than the ar;ount offered before proceedlngs vere oomzenoed, then the oort.8 shall be paid by the owner of the property.’ TheThree Dollars per day allowed the OOmmiSsiOllera under the foregoing statutes, are a part of the Costa, to be taxmdand paid as provided in ArtI 3267, supra. 16Texas zurleprudenoe, para. 146, P. 765.Honorable Riohard C. Splnn, Page 3
Bywhatever term thle Three Dollarr per daynay be oalled, whether ooneldered as Seer or nagee, it 11 to be 4letlngulehe4 from the usual amountoharged asnooeteW an4taxed le ouch. Clearly, the per diem here la allowed for eervloee rendered an4 la not etrlotly epeaking, nooate* although it is paid byone or other of the psrtlee to the prooeedlnge.It has been he14 that rtatuter relating to ooete in ordinary 01~11 prooeedlnge do not apply. See Dolores No. 2 1. k C. co, v. Hartman, 17 Colo. 138, 29Fao. 378; Dickens v. Amherst Bater Co., 139xass. 210; Johnson v. A. S. Sutllse, 17Neb. 423.

*lOrdlnarIly dayie the spaoe of time which elapses while the earth makes a complete revolution on lte axis, but artIfIolally, It la the time between the rising and setting of the $un. And in oode, No. 3825, providing that the oomtiesloners of Insanity shall be allowed at the rate of Three Dollars per day eaoh, for the time actually employed ln the duties or their office, the term 1s not to be eo construed, andthe atatute entitled the oomalsslonere to full oompensatlon whenever they perform services ona given day, regardless of the nutr.berof hour8 spent in such employment. Fite v. Dallao County, 54. N. i5. 368, 369, 87 Iowa 563.* ?:ordsand Phraser, Vol. 2, p. 1837. mStatute allowing appraiser8 

### 0s eetates nottol

xoeed Five Dollare per ,!day* for eerrloea was not Intended to permit appraisers to oolleot plurality 

### 0s appraleal 

## se88for name day’s work tmffi ffildnlght to midnight to perform

~ ~:I

~~“~~.‘~egp,~~~~i~~~~~~~~ &&+?~d) I?ⅇ Fifth Se~leo;Vol. 2, p: 196.

“If two oauses br,tween the sameparties are investigated and decided bythe samearbltratore at the 8au.etine, they are entitled to be paid only for the numberof day8 spent in the investigation of both oaeee, and oannot makea dlrtlnot oharge, for eaoh oaee. clrardHonorabls %lohard C. .ZpInn, Page 4

v. Hutohlnson, 4 r;ergeant k Ran188Reports (Pa,) 81, .;ee also Buroher v. Soott, 1Pa. L. J. Ii. 311, 2Pa. L. J. 287.” 8Corpus Jurls, para. 427 p. 174, note 9(a). In the abova oase “Chard v’

. HutohInsonw, supra, the arbitrators met forty-two times and oharged for fortytwo days, opent in the lnvest~gatlon of each ease. The oourt doaided that theywere only entb-tle4 to be paid for forty-two days servloe as awhole, viz., twenty-one days In each Case,

‘zhlle the prooedural statutcl: under Tit.16 52, Vernon’s Annotated fievlsed Civil Statutes, are singular In terais with reference to each prooeedlng being a separate and dlstlnot osse, it wasnever intended by the Leglslature that a plurality of Three Dollars per day coltpensatlon could be oolleoted In more than one day. Thestatutes are silent as to requiring 4lrferent oonmlssIoners to be appointed in each partloular oaae. ‘Seare unable to give aoonstructlon toAhe statute and the provision

“Three Dollars for each day they maybe engage4 in the performance of their duties ,” as peralttlng &ore than the oou,pensatlon rate prescribed.

Assuming, with reference to your request, that all awards were rendered on the fourth day andthe oommlssloners during such four day period, in the perfonranoe of their duties, were slttlng in eaoh 0688, the 

## faot that the oounty 1s charged with the ooets In all seven oases would authorize the proration of suoh co&pensatlon among the seven eases.

It is, therefore, the opinion of this department that where three oonzIasloners, appointed under the provlslons of Artiole 3204, Vernon’o Annotated Revised civil Statutes, in the perforffianoe of their duties render seven awards during a period of four days, they would only be entitled to Three Dollars per day for the four days service rendered. ft 1s further our opinion that the:oounty, under t,hafacts subrtitted, would be entitled to prorate the sum of Thirty-six Dollars amongthe seven oases in whlcfi separate awards were rendered, no one oase requiring a day’s senioe..

.
Eonorable Flahard C. gplnn, Fag83
Trusting the above answers your request, weare Very truly yours ATTORNEY

G~3IiA.LCFTEXAS

BY