Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )


Menu:
  • OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN GROVER SELLERS GRETA,. ATTORH=I Honorable Lon Alsup Executive Secretary-Director State Commission for the Blind Austin, Texas "ear !Ar.Alsupr Opinion Boa O-7181 A Re: Is Federal Gover&en~ required Your letter states Comptroller issued a State payable to the United Farm Security lost, and had not do so unl~e Vernon's Annotated Cltll / +&ask ~'$0 a,@se ' If any branch of the Federal r&qulre&&Wmake "' bond when a warrant'hae been epahtment of the Federal Government by the State r; Com&,rolJer otjPublic Accounts, and such warrant has been lost.? _ ' \,,l/' / 1. Ar,tl&le 4365, Revised Statutes, above referred to, ~rovide~~~~eclflcally for the Issuance of a duplicate war- rant when the original has been lost 'but no such duplicate warrant or other evidence of lndehtedness &al] issue until the applicant has filed with the Comptroller his affidavit, statlne that he Is the true owner of such instrument, and that tke same is in fact lout or destroyed, and shall also file with the Comotroller his bond In double the amount Of the claim, with two or more pood and sufficient sureties, payab!e to the Governor to be apnroYed by the Comptroller.' - , 812 Honorable ton AI sup - page 2 In OUF O?lnlon X0. c)-23O%,R copy of'Which YOU have, this Pepartment held that before the Pallas Independent School District could. obtain a duplicate Warrant, It, as a yoljtlcal subdivision of the State’, was required to execute the hond be- fore obtaininn a duplicate warrant. In said Opinion we held that there were no exceptions oontalned In said statute, and t?at ft therefore applied, and would apply, to each and all of the State Governmental agencies. In the case of United States Y. Branson, 147 8. 1. (2) 286, (error ref.) the United States had filed suit to re- oover a monied judgment apalnst the Banking Comlssloner. The trial court held aralnst the United States, and it appeal- ed. The court had for review the question of the necessity for the United States t.o execute an appeal bond under Article 2263 of the Revised Civil Statutes. In holding that it was necessary, the court stated; ‘Art. 22!53. Rev. WY. Stat.‘,1925, provldes that ‘An appeal may 0 * * be taken * * * by the appellant giving notice of anpeal * * l by his fillne with the clerk an apueal bond wh~ere a bond Is required by law. if**‘. Artlole 22615 yesorlhes the form and suffiolen- cy of t.he bond. The Legislature has seen fit to ex- emnt certain persons and entitles from the requlre- ment of.fllin~ an appeal bond * * * but no Texas statute, either expressly or by Implication, exempts the United States from giving the bona required by Article 2253. Xelther Is it exempted by any Act of Congr’eee~’ Since our courts have speclficallf held that the United States Government, In order to perfect an appeal to our State court,s,mst give an appeal bond, they rould un- questionably hold that before the Lbited State’s Government, or any of Its ageno’les, cou!d obtain a duplicate warrant from the Comptroller, under Article 438.1) of the Revised St.atutes, It would be necessary for It to execute the bona required therein. In reply to your question, therefore, we state t.hat the Comptroller is correct in his refusa.1 to Issue a dup’llcate warra.nt until and/or unless the bond required by said statute I s executed. Very truly pours COYMn-rLE GWB-XR

Document Info

Docket Number: O-7181

Judges: Grover Sellers

Filed Date: 7/2/1946

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017