## 144

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AWlIN** 

Eonorable Riohard s. xorrlr county Attorney 

# Almrtrong county OlaPd., hrrr Dear 8ira

r 14, 1940, mqurrtlng all opln

### Qiertlonr a8 **8re** h8roin 8t#trd

ter read8 in part a8follows:

eOrSWL9tO3111 567 Ofthe 46th h#3i8- ding ?or trarrllng rxpenaer **for** County OSorrtsln oountlea, rule4 unconstltudepartment In opinion No. o-2127, each

IA county drew traveling lxpens,\r ior approximately ten months. After reoelring the above numbered opinlcn whioh was approve4 by t!m Attorney General April 15, 1940, ruoh **paysent** of traveliIt& l XpelU* -8 **di8OOntiZlUed.** The majority of autt.oritie8 apparently hold that a atatute is speeurmd to be oonrtitutlonal until adjudged

## ’ rp

Ronorable Richard S. Morris, Page 2

**UnOOn8titUtiOMl** bya court of competent ?urI8- diction. 9Tex. Jur. 467, Sea. SO; 16C. J. s. 277, Sea. 100; Tex.98National Guard ArmoryBoar4 v. MoCrar, **Atty.** General. 126 S. F. 2nd627; ,;uIm v. JOhn8on, County Judge 

### et al, 91 S. #. 2nd499.

‘The majority ot 8uthorltier alma hold that a rtatute deolared unoonrtitution81 18null an4~014 and Or noeffect a8of the date of **it8** enaotment. 10CJS287, S8o. 101; An4generally all act8 under an unconstltutional **rtatute** are null andvoid. 16 CJS 290. *The question I have **in** mindan4uponrklch I have been unable to fin4 authorltle8 in point and therefore wl8h to 8ubmlt to your department for anopinion Is a6followe: Ie the expenditure of county fun48 **for** 

### traveling

expenres 

### ofcounty oomlrsloner8 by virtue of the above-mentioned **statute** of ruoh an illegal nature a8to require rrpapnent thereof at thle time?



### “Ii, 8t t>l8 time, the oomml8rioner8 are not llablo **for return**  **of** the funds drawn under 

### thr **rtatute** in quertion, would they be liable for return thereor In the event a court of competent jurl8dlotIon adjudged the **statute** In question to be unoon8tltutional?W In our Oplnlon No. O-23 (Conference O?lnlon 3032) It wa8he14 that Howe Bill 727 of the Regular Se88ion, Chapter 4M of the Cen8ral and Speolal Lawsof the 45th **Legi8lature,** anamendatory Act to Article 1055, Code OSCriminal Proce4ure, was unoonatltutlonal. Xrter the above mentioned **8tatute wac.**  held to **be** unoonstltutlonal by thlr Department, In Opinion No. O-142, ltwa8 held that counties could not recover halt co&a paid ofrlcers under the law declared unconstltutlonal.

;w quote rrom Opinion NC. O-142 as follows:

“It Is true the mark ‘1Enorance of the 1a.Nexcuses no one’, is f:enerallvaccepted. The argument ‘5ae been made it should sp~ly in the case of en unccnfititutional etotute fcr the reason WC!? an Act stands on tf.8 samebee‘-s ae no **law** et all, but there are scme exception0.w The general rule as stated **in** Texas Jurisprudence, Volume34, psEe 473, reads as f0110ws:.

Honorable Richard S. Eorrie, Wge 3

“An ofrloer who, without authority of law, oollectr taxes or exoesrlve fees maybe oompelled to relmburm the persona fromwhomthe moneywas received. But Seempaid voluntarily endwith full knowledge of the faots, though under a mIstUce of law, oannot, under art%led prinolpler, be reoovare4.w (34 Tex. Jur. 476; 32Tax. Jur. 739; Hirrhfirl4 v. Fort worth National Rank, 03 Tax. 452; 18 S. W. 745; County of Galveston v. Gorham, 49 TOX. 279, 303; City of Hourton V. Fearer, 76Tax. 565, 13s. w. 266.) TheSupreme Court or the Unite4 Stete8 in the cam of United State8 v. Realty Company, 163U. S. 427, 41U. S. (L. Ed.) 215, held knOWledge0s the invalidity **0s** an Act of Congrees will not be imputed, in advance of any authoritative decleretIon to that errect, to those whoere acting under its provi8lOIll!, 60ae to preclude then from having equitlea baaed on their rolianor upon the Aot,

It ha8 been raid that e mlnit.terlal **orrioer** ha0not the right to deolde uponthe oonrtitutionalfty 

### or unoonatitutlonellty **0s** anAot parred with all the formality 0s law. It 18the duty **0s** such ofrioer8 to execute an4 not to pas8judgment onthe law. Volume 9, Texas Jurlrprudenoe, 468; Seseums v. Bott8, 34 TAX.335 (holding en **UnOOnstitUtiOWl** Aot **regUlab** lng the oolleotlon of debts protected clerks of courts acting under it). In view of the foregoing authorltlrr, you ere respeotfully advised that it is the oplnlon of thin Department thet the oounty funds expended for traveling sxpenees of county oommledoner‘r by virtue of the above mentioned statute8 cannot be recovers4 by the county.

In reply to your second lusstlon, ycu are further advised that it Is our opinion that, in the event a court of competent Jurisdiction held the statute in questloh to be unconstitutional, the coml.?sloners wald not be liable for tte funds dram under the stetute held to be unconstitutional.

Trustlw t??at the forecoiw fully easwers your inWry. we are Yours very truly .i’?TiN%Y C?ZNii!bLOFTXXAS