Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1969 )


Menu:
  •                                                              ERAL,
    AUSTIN.     TEXAS      78711
    CRAWFORD       C. MARTIN
    ATTORNEY     GENIERAL
    September 17, 1969
    Honorable Sam I,.Gayle, Jr.             Opinion No. M- 473
    County Attorney
    Jackson County                          Re:   Whether, under the facts
    Edna, Texas                                   submitted, a County Judge
    is disqualified from pre-
    siding at condemnation
    trials and related ques-
    Dear Mr. Gayle:                               tiorls.
    In your request for an opinion from this office, you
    submit the following facts:
    “The County Judge of Jackson County has
    refused to preside at condemnation proceedings
    in this County. A special judge has been ap-
    pointed to preside at these hearings by consent
    of the parties and County funds are being used
    by order of the Commissioners Court to pay said
    special judge. This payment together with the
    court order for same, is evidenced by the en-
    closed photo-copy. Ih no condemnation case
    which I have reference to have the parties
    thereto objected to the regular County Judge
    presiding or has any hearing been held and it
    determined therein that the said Judge is dls-
    qualified by law.
    “Further, in none of these cases does it
    appear that the County Judge is disqualified
    to serve by reason of either kinship to the
    parties, an interest in the subject matter of:
    the suit, or has he been of counsel therein.
    With regard to these facts, you ask the following
    questions, which we quote as follows:
    “(1) Is the County Judge disqualified
    from presiding at condemnation proceedings by
    reason of his appointment of special commis-
    sioners to assess damages in said cases?
    - 2359-
    Hon. Sam L. Gayle, Jr., page 2    (M-473)
    "(2)    Does any case, statute, or law per-
    taining to   this State allow the County Judge to
    disqualify   himself from presiding on condemna-
    tion cases   when he is not legally disqualified?
    “(3)  Can County Funds be expended to pay
    a special County Judge who has been appointed by
    consent of the parties to preside at condemna-
    tion proceedings when the regular County Judge
    is not legally disqualified from presiding at
    said condemnation proceedings In County Court?"
    Section 11, Article V, Constitution of Texas, provides,
    in part, as follows:
    "No judge shall sit in any case wherein
    he may be interested, or where either of the
    parties may be connected with him, either by
    affinity or consanguinity, within such a
    degree as may be prescribed by law, or when
    he shall have been counsel in the case. . , .'
    In reference to this constitutional provision, it is
    stated in 33 Tex.Jur.2d, 391-392, Judges, g27, as follows:
    1,
    . . .These inhibitions are not only
    mandatory, they are exclusive;  that *a, they
    specify all the circumstances that forbid a
    judge to sit. Thus, a judge is not disqualified
    because of bias or prejudice, because of pre-
    vious rulings made by him, nor because 2f in-
    ability to attend to his duties. . . .
    Thus, where It is not shown that a County Judge has
    any interest in a county condemnation proceeding other than as
    a taxpayer and as a member of the Commissioners Court, the
    County Judge's interest in the case Is not sufficient to con-
    stitute the disqualiflcatlon of the Judge to appoint commis-
    sioners to assess damages or to preside at the trial. Gossett
    v. State, 
    417 S.W.2d 730
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1967, error ref.'m,
    d the authorities therein cited    Therefore, in answer to your
    %rst question, you are advised that under the facts submitted,
    It is our opinion that by reason of the provisions of Section 11,
    Article V, Constitution of Texas , and the holding In Gossett v.
    
    State, supra
    , the County Judge is not disqualified from presidi
    -condemnation   cases by reason of his appointment of special c:E-
    missioners to assess damages in said cases.
    - 2360-
    .    .
    Hon. Sam L. Gayle, Jr., page 3 (M-473)
    The County Judge and County Court of Jackson County
    have jurisdiction over matters of emlnent domain as provided
    in Articles 1959, 1960 and Articles 3264-3271, Vernon's Civil
    Statutes. Therefore, in answer to your second question, you
    are advised that it is our opinion that in the absence of
    legal disqualification, the County Judge as presiding officer
    of the County Court, has a duty to preside In condemnation
    cases in Jackson County.
    We have found but one occasion on which the parties
    to a suit may, by consent, appoint a proper person to try a
    case. This occasion arises only when the regular Judge is
    legally disqualified. It Is evident from the facts submitted
    that the parties purported to appoint a special judge under
    the authority of the provisions of Section 16, Article V,
    Constitution of Texas, and Articles 1930, 1933 and Article 3266.
    Since we have concluded that the County Judge is not
    legally disqualified from presiding in condemnation cases in
    Jackson County, it Is therefore our opinion that the purported
    appointment of a special County Judge by consent of the parties
    under the facts submitted was without legal authority and was
    Invalid. However, under the facts submitted, a special County
    Judge could have been selected under the provisions of Article
    1934, Vernon's Civil Statutes. This Article reads as follows:
    "If a county judge fails to appear at the
    time appointed for holding the court, or should
    he be absent during the term or unable or un-
    willing to hold the court, a special county judge
    may be elected in like manner as is provided for
    the election of a special district judge. The
    special county judge so elected shall have all
    the authority of the county judge while in the
    trial and disposition of any case pending In
    said court during the absence, inability, or
    such refusal of the county judge. Similar
    elections may be held at any time during the
    term, to supply the absences failure or in-
    ability of the county, or any special judge,
    to perform the duties of the office. When a
    special county judge shall have been so elected,
    the clerk shall enter upon the minutes of the
    court, a record such as is providzd for In
    like cases in the district court.
    The manner of election of a special County Judge specified in
    Article 1934 is provided for in Articles 1887-1893, Vernon's
    - 2361-
    Hon. Sam L. Gayle, Jr., Page 4 (M-473)
    Civil Statutes.
    The Commissioners Court of Jackson County would
    have been authorized to compensate a special County Judge
    elected under the statutory 
    provisions, supra
    , by the au-
    thority of Articles 1933 and 6821, Vernon's Civil Statutes.
    However, there is no authority for the Commissioners Court
    to order compensation of a special County Judge selected
    by agreement of the parties to a case when the regular County
    Judge is not disqualified by law to preside over condemnation
    cases. The courts of Texas have repeatedly held that county
    commissioners' courts may exercise only such authority as is
    conferred upon them by the Constitution and statutes of this
    State, either by express terms or by implication. Art. V,
    Sec. 18, Constitution of Texas; Bland v. Orr, 
    90 Tex. 492
    ,
    
    39 S.W. 558
    (1897); Roper v. Hall, 280 S W 
    289 Tex. Civ. App. 1925
    .
    _ -. no writ): Landman v. State, 97 S.W:2d 264 Tex.Clv.App.
    1936, error ref.)XZI- Paso County v. Elam, 
    106 S.W.2d 393
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1937, no wr: ;       V. Sterrett, 
    252 S.W.2d 766
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1952, error ref. n.1r.e.j.
    Consequently, in answer to your third question, it
    Is our opinion that in view of the foregoing authorities the
    Commissioners Court of Jackson County was not authorized to
    order the expenditure of county funds to pay the appointee
    who has presided in these cases by consent appointment of the
    parties.
    SUMMARY
    Under the provisions of Section 11, Article
    V, Constitution of Texas, and the holding in
    Gossett v. State,       -the County Judge, in
    view of the facts =F?
    su m tted, is not disqualified
    from presiding at condemnation cases by reason
    of his appointment of special commissioners to
    assess damages in said cases.
    The purported appointment of a special county
    judge by consent of the parties under the facts
    submitted was without legal authority and was in-
    valid. However, under the facts submitted, a
    special County Judge could have been selected
    under the provisions of Article 1934, Vernon's
    Civil Statutes.
    -   2362   -
    Hon. Sam L. Gayle, Jr., Page 5 (M-473)
    The Commissioners Court of Jackson County was
    not authorized to order the expenditure of county
    funds to pay the special County Judge, who was
    purportedly appointed by consent of the parties
    to preside in condemnation cases in Jackson County.
    Ver
    eneral of Texas
    Prepared by Ivan R. Williams, Jr.
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION CONMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    George Kelton, Vice-Chairman
    Bill Craig
    Lonny Zwiener
    Bill Allen
    Monroe Clayton
    HAWTHORNE PHILLIPS
    Executive Assistant
    MEADE F. GRIFFIN
    Staff Legal Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -   2363   -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-473

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1969

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017