HE A OR~'EY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Hon. J. D. Looney 

Countg.AudiFor 

Boston, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. C-5704 “’ 

Re: Whether conversion into ca’kh of U-S; 

Government bond’5 owned by an estate& 

gives rise to “actual cash receipts 

upon which the county judige would 

be entitled to 8 commissfon of tinehalf of one per cent under Article 

3926, R.C.S. 

Your letter or MaPch 31, 1944, requesting the opinion 

of this department upon the above stated question Peaas as 

follows: 

“Since receipt of your Opinion No. O-5654, dated 

November 8, 1943, written by Mr. J. Arthur Sandlfn, 

ana approved by you as First Astilstant Attorney General, construing Art. 3926 RCS as applied to the facts 

submitted by me relative to commissions of County 

Judge on liquiaa,ting alvlaenas in the amount of 

$255;659.80 as reported by Mrs 0 Helen Seeger, Aaministratrlx of the Estate of W, J. Buchanan, Deceased, 

.9 further questfon has arisen with respect to the 

sppllcabillty of the County Judge’s commissions under 

Art 0 3926,to U, S. Government Bon& .whfch were sold 

bg the Adminlstratrix in order to pay Federal Estate 

taxes and Texas Inherftanoe taxes, 

“The AdminfstPatrix sold U.S. Government Bonds 

to the amount of $3,136,06g.‘J.4 in order to raise mocey 

tb help pay Federal Estate taxes and Texas Inherftance 

taxes Q These bonds were sold without getting an order 

of the Court, but are Pepopted, in Exhibit B of the 

fPrst’ annual accounting of the Aclmfnistratrfx undar 

Capital Receipts along with seven other Items of cash 

receipts. A copy of Exhibit B fs aMached hereto. 

~“Counsel for the Administratrix now contends 

that cash receipts from the sale of these bonds is not 

subject to one-half of one per cent conrmission for tka 

County Judge un&er Apt. 3926 RCS because said bon& were 
Hon. J. D. Looney, page 2 o-5704 

bold for the purpose of ralslng money to help pay taxes, 

and further because counsel claims the U.S. Goternmtint 

held a lien on said bonds for the payment of said taxes. 

“You,.*’ opinion No, 0-5654, as above referred to, 

is a very comprehensive one; and under this oplnlon it 

is my contention and. also. that. of the County Judge that 

said commission is appllcable’to cash receipts realized 

from the sale of these bonds as set pouter above, regardless of whether they were sold to pay taxes or whether 

OP not the U. S, Government had a lien on them for the 

payment of taxes, 

“The County Judge’s cominlsslon has already been 

paid by the Admlnlstratrix~on all Items showiildiaer 

Capital Receipts an&Income Receipts of~‘the’attached copy 

of Exhlblt B of the aforementioned annual accOunt, with 

the exception of the item checkea in red, which 1s the’ 

lt.em of cash received from the sale of Governmerit bonds 

for the purpose of paying taxes e The- Cbunty Jiidge has 

withheid his commission on this Item awaltlng a further 

opinion from you as to the applicablllty of this commission L 

“I shall appreciate it very much If you will 

glve me your further opinion as to whether or nbt onehalf of one per cent commlssion can legally be assessed 

by the Gounty Judge on the Item under Capital Receipts 

of PBonils sold to pay taxes In the amount of $3,136,069.14.‘,” 

The commissions allowed the county judge under Article 3926 are upon ~“the actual cash receipts’ of each executor,’ 

&dminlstrator, or guardfan, upon the approval of the exhibits, 

and. the fln.al settlement of the account e . D .’ 

It Is well settled that cash on hand or in the bank 

at the death of the testator 1s not “actual cash receipts” wlthin the rnearilng of ‘the a’bove statute, and no CommlssiOn accrues 

thereon In favor of the county judge, 25 Tex. Jur. 260; Wlllls 

V- Harvey, 26 S .W. (2a) 288, error refused a In our opinion No. 

o-5654, written in ar>swer to an earlier inquiry from you, we 

held that “#hen, in the course of an aamlnfstratlon, part of the 

corpus of tne estate 1s converted into cash, the county judge 

1s entitled to 8 commfaslon on the amount of such cash.” The 

answer to your present inquiry, therefore, turns upon~‘the questlon of whether U.S. Government bonds owned. by an estate represent “cash on hand” prlor to their conversion into money. 

Our opicion No, 0-5654 held in effect that corporate 

dook ala not become “cash” until Its converslon Into money. 
Hon, J. D. Looney, page 3 O-5704 

Although the d,ecisions are not un.anlmous, we balieve the weight 

of authority supports a holding that U, S. Government bonds 

likewise cannot be considered’ as “cash” until they are converted 

into money O In re KeePs Estate 2 P. (2a) 806, (N,M,:; fin 

re Chamberlain’s Estate, 115 PO f2a 235, ” on second appeal., 

132 P. (2d) 488 (California District Court of Appeal) ; Mann, 

7 Am.‘Dec: 416; State V. Darby, 165 SOW. (2d) 419 (MO.); 

Neufield V. U.S., 1.18 F, (2d) 375; Cou,lter v. State, 39 S, W. 

576 (Tex. Cr. App.); Simpson v, Goggin, 5 S,W. (2d) 610 (Tex, 

Clv. App.)’ (holding that checks by persons or corporations 

are not “cash”) O See also Willis v. Harvey, supra, aherein i.t 

IS stated: “It Is ,?ihought the term ‘actual cash receipts’ 

should, be held to specifically describe monexL. 6 O i” 

We do not regard as persuaslve the fact that the 

U.S. Government had a lien on the bon&, and that the p”Ar;;;; of 

selling the bonds was to pay Federal and State taxes. 

exists in favor of the U. 9 ,, Government on all estates of 

decedents on which estate taxes are due, and to hold that this~ 

avoided the obligation to pay commissions would deprive the 

county judge of his commissions in all exceptional,lg large 

estates D In our opinion the language of Art, 3926 fails to 

support such a construC:tfon. With reference to the raising of 

the money to pay taxes contention, we call attention to our 

opinion No. 0-811, ,wherein we held that the county judge was 

entitled to his commission on money borrowed by the executor to 

pays the claims against the astate. Further, in a case wherein 

an administrator carried on a poea construction con~tract of a 

decedent, Judge Powell of the Commission of Appeals said: 

‘ “The court seems to lay napch stress on the fac,t 

that as soon as the i;our:t,ies paid the administrafor 

for the road work, the iatter had to pay it out in 

expenses connected wi,th tCie oomtrv,ction of the roa&, 

We do not think the time or manner of its disburz;mznt 

has anythimo do witpl the fees of the county 3 R 

since he, unlike execu,tors and adSfinistrators, receives 

no compensation, on disbu:3eme::~ts 6 

This decision allowed a commission ,to ,the judge on, these re::a.ip’tis. 

Goodwin V. Downs, 280 SOW, 512, 

From the foregoingp it follows that we are of the 

opinion that the sale of ,the eo?lds represented t;e conver5 ia::.. of 

assets of the estate ir..to “ae’-L;zal cash receipts, and the coi;s,tg 

judge is entit~led to his sta~tuto’ry commission thereon, 
Hon. J. D. Looney, page 4 

JAS:AMM:wc 

O-5704 

Yours veri truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By a/Jo Arthur SiXndlin 

J .” AFC-iur Sanalin 

Assistant 

APPROVED APR'22, 1944 

s/Gee. P. Blackburn 

(Acting) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman