Court Opinion

ID: 9674113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:16.074968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.624112
License: Public Domain

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I do not concur in the opinion of the majority. The contract sought to be set aside contained the following provision:
“To pay him (Gordon Gibson, Esq.), forthwith and by way [sic] retainer and to cover his out-of-pocket expenses in making and taking statements of witnesses, taking depositions, securing court costs, etc., the sum of $5,000.00.”
This'provision violated the budget law, ■Article 689a-ll, Vernon’s - Ann.Civ.Stats., and the majority so hold. - The contract being void in part, the trial court properly issued the temporary writ of injunction to maintain the status quo until there could be a hearing upon the merits.
It is my opinion that this provision of the contract not only violated the budget law, but also Section 7 of Article 11 of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St, prohibiting the 'Commissioners’- Court from creating a debt against the county without at the same time levying a tax to create at le'ast a 2% sinking fund. Stevenson v. Blake, 131 Tex. 103, 113 S.W.2d 525.
I think the further agreement to pay the attorney a fee equal to 15% of any and all sums recovered by him is, also prohibited by the provisions of Section 7 of Article 11, supra, for if such sum was to he paid out of the funds to be recovered, the agreement was void because the. funds were a part of the Road Bond Fund, J. R. Phillips Inv. Co. v. Road Dist. No. 18, Tex.Civ.App,, 172 S.W.2d 707, and if it was not to be paid out of such recovery then it was a debt within the meaning of Section 7, Article 11, supra. Stevenson v. Blake, supra.
The contract was void for another reason, it wás an attempt to take the control of this litigation out of the hands of the District Attorney and turn it over -to a private attorney. Art. 339, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. makes it the duty of the District Attorney to prosecute cases of this nature, and the Commissioners’ Court is without power to take from him the right to direct and control this litigation. 34 Tex.Jur. 444, § 69; McAskill v. Terrell, 113 Tex. 500, 259 S.W. 914; Murray v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 208 S.W.2d 626; Rawson v. Brownsboro Ind. School Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 263 S.W.2d 578.
If Gordon Gibson, Esq., should be permitted to perform services under this contract, even though on a final hearing it should be declared to be an illegal contract, he might be permitted to recover for his services upon a quantum meruit basis. Sluder v. City of San Antonio, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 841.
The temporary injunction in this case did nothing more than preserve the status quo, pending a hearing upon the merits of the case, and in my opinion it was not improvidently issued.