. 

, 

, 

Q-C.- 

A-- 

OFFICE OF THE Al-kORNtiYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

_’ 

nonorsble Keeldon 3, Davis 

county Attorliey 

Aust.in County 

IjelLville, Texas 

zqar sir : 

correctly advise 

orders auly mite soa entered of recwa at 

its first reg.&r ne9tinc in Janunry or 

each cult-ndar yem since the effective data 

Gi: .4xtic1o 391% or the i;cvisQd civil statutes of Tom:;18 deierninsd that thu cwnty offioors of ;,ustin County shsll be 003;.enmtea 

on the b"sIs of fees enrnd by thorn in the 

. . 
Szlorable \Folaon B. Davis, Page 2 

perfomance of their official duties. On 

April 22, 1939, e vacancy occurred in the 

ofrice of County Attorney of Austin County. 

On said date, April 22, 1939, an8 during 

tho time the vacancy existed end before the 

appointment to fill the vacancy wes made, 

the Commissioners' Court by en order duly 

made and entered of record reduced the exofficio compensation to bo paid the County 

Attorney of Austin County from and after 

said date from $1800.00 per year, or $150.00 

I@; ;;;t";, to 31200.00 per year, or $100.00 

lOOO.OO'~r 

Ths ex-offioio compensation of . 

, B * year had been fixed et the 

first regular msetin~ of the Comisaioners’ 

court in *IDmary, 1939. On April 25, 1939, 

three days after such order reducing the ex- 

,officio oompensation was amae end entered of 

record, the Commissioners* Court made the 

appointment of a-County Attorney to fill' the 

vacancy, and the person’ 80 appointed accepted 

ouch eppointmcnt and qualified es suoh officer 

with full knowledge of the action of the Commlosioners' Court in reducing the ex-officio 

compensation to be paid such offioer, and in 

fact suoh appointee before accepting such 

appointment and before qualifying for such 

office oxpressea to the Commissioners* Gcurt 

his satisfacticn and his willingness to 

serve as County Attorney at such reduced exofficio coaponsation. He hcs now, howevsr, 

presented to the Commissioners* C0urt his 

claim for additional ex-officio comyensation 

for the period from tho date of his quualifiCetion to the end of the year 1939 at the 

rate of $50.00 per month, that being the 

amount the ox-officio oomgensaticn wos reduced by the order of the Court made and 

ontorod on April 22, 1939. The exact question thus presented is whether the Corzi~ftsslonsrsr Court cl" Austin County unacr the 

faots related ooul,fi at a m::oting other than 

the first regular mseting in January of each 

Year enter ,an order reducing or deorsaslng the 

ex-officio compensation to be paid the County 

Attorney for future sorvicos. 

c-- 328 

, 
Bonorable iY&lon 1). Eavi~, Rage 3 

"In briefing the question 1 have come 

to the oonclusion that the provisions of 

Article 3912e of the Revised Civil Statutes 

relating to the tines and the amounts and 

the manner of fixing the salaries of county 

officers, and the recent cases together vtith 

the opinions handed down by your offike construing the provisions of this article, have 

no application to the question presented for 

the reason that Austin County is coszpensating 

its officers on a fee basis and not on a 

'salary basis, Any authority the Corn&saioners* 

Court has to allow, ohange or modify conpensation for ex-officio services must be derived 

from kticle 3895 of the i?evlsed Civil Ctotutoa 

of Texas and the construction given said artiole by the oourts of our State. In my opinion 

the case of Colllngaworth County vs. Xyers, 35 

s. W. 414, definitely settles the issue and correctly answers the question in the affirmative. 

Ry conolusion that the CGurt could on April 22, 

1939, end as for that netter at any time, lavafully enter the order ohanging or reducing the 

ex-ofSici0 congensation of the County Attorney, 

for future services is Purthor fortified by the 

statements found under the title 'Fublic OfHoers* in 3-i Taxes Jurisprudence, tee. 107, on 

page 511, and in the saiae voluroe and under the 

same title on pages 526-329, Sec..llS, end the 

authorities there 0itea.n 

We have oarefully considered your letter, together 

*lth the statutes and authorities mentioned therein, and agree 

Eith the cmcluelon reaohod bjr you, 

Article 3693, VernGn'a .Annotated Civil Statutes, 

rd.5 as f0110~s: 

*The Co!r&saiunersl Court is hereby 

.debarred IrGm nllouing compensation for exoff1010 services to county officials when the 

ccnpensation ma excess fee3 vM.ch Lhey are 

allowed to rctsin shall reach the marimur~ 

provided for. in this chapter. In cases -Jihsre 

the oonpcnsation and exce:~s foes which the 

officers are allozed to retain shall not 

reach the nsximm provided for in this chapter, 

the ~bsxa3.ssioner.s~ Cour t shzll allovr cGm:ensa-~ 

tion for ox officio sGrvicezB when, in their 
gonorab16 -Weldon B. aavis, FaCe 4 

, 

Judgment,, such cocpensation is ns&,+sary, 

prodded, such compensation for ex officio 

services allo;ied shall not increase the 

compensation of the offioial beyond the 

maxlnum of compen6ation and excess fees 

alloviod to be retained ,by bin under this 

chapter. Provided, however, the ex offioio herein authorized shall be alloned 

only after an opportunity for a publid 

hearing and only upon the affirmative 

vote of at least three megbars of the 

~ommissioners~ Court." 

We quote from Texas Turisprudence, Vol. S?, P. 527, 

88 fol.loss: 

** * * the coCnissioners* oourt has 

powor to fix the co3lpensation of an officer, 

it nay change the amount at any time, oven 

during his term of office. Thus its orders 

fixing the compensation of officers for exofficio services are not contracts or juagmanta against the ccunty, and may be ohangcd, 

modified, repealed or revoked at any tine 

before the nonoy $5~ tczually been paid Out 

to the officer. . 

we quote from the ca6e of Collinysworth County v. 

Lydrs, 35 s. iv. 414, as follows: 

r* + * t:e are of opinion that, in 

auditing ani fixing the onounto to be paid 

6uch officers for ex offioio scrvicas, the 

00~ii3sionersf court acts in a legislative 

capccity Roro than in a judicial, and that 

such orders are not judE)I;lents against the 

Ccunty, and that, whenever the cozzissionera 

Oonclude, for any reason, that such allowances 

are too great or too ~~11, they have the 

Sight and power, at any time before the 

xeoney is actwlly paid out to the officer, 

to change, modify, or even sntiroly repeal 

or revokes the order. * r, *.n 

In view of tho for'ei;OIng authorities, the above stated 

W6tion is answsred in the affirmatlvo. 

. 
. ,. ._ 

33-J 

I 

gonorable C6ldon B, Dovia,. Fage 5 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answsrs your 

lncplry, rre are 

. 

rrdell ‘XilllnmS 

Assi6tant 

I