Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1970 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Glen Aaron, Jr.      Opinion No. M-659
    County Attorney
    Tom Green County               Re:     Legal status of county
    San Angelo, Texas                      attorney and of that
    office following submis-
    sion of letter of resigna-
    tion, acceptance by
    Commissioner's Court, and
    Dear Mr. Aaron:                        withdrawal of resignation.
    You have requested the opinion of this office regarding
    the legal status of the office of County Attorney of Tom Green
    County and the status of your relationship with that office.
    You have advised us that on May 15, 1970, you submitted to the
    Commissioner's Court your resignation from the office of County
    Attorney, to be effective June 1.5,1970, that on May 15th the
    Commissioner's Court accepted your resignation, and that on
    June 1, 1970, you submitted to the Commissioner's Court a with-
    drawal of your resignation. You have further advised us that,
    "At all times to date I have acted in the official capacity of
    County Attorney of Tom Green County."
    We have been advised that no other person was appointed
    to and qualified for the office of County Attorney of Tom Green
    County between the time you submitted your resignation and the
    time you withdrew such resignation. Under the facts presented,
    it appears that the officer attempted to withdraw his uncon-
    dltional resignation after its unconditional acceptance by the
    Commlssionerfs Court, and prior to the date it was to take effect.
    Although we are not so advised, we assume that there has been
    no withdrawal by the Commissioner's Court of its acceptance,
    neither prior to the date such resignation was to take effect
    nor at any subsequent time.
    Under the facts and circumstances, the resignation of
    office was complete and the officer's attempt to withdraw his
    resignation was futile. Since the effective date of such
    resignation and acceptance, such officer must serve, and in
    fact has been serving, as a "hold-over" under the authority of
    -3152-
    .
    Honorable Glen Aaron, Jr., page 2 (M- 659)
    Article XVI, Section 17, Constitution of Texas, which status con-
    tinues until a successor is duly qualified to fill the vacancy
    created. El Paso and S.W.R. Co. v. Ankenbauer, 
    175 S.W. 1090
    ,
    1092 (Tex.Civ.App. 1 15          f * Jones v. City of Jefferson,
    
    66 Tex. 576
    , 1 S.W. ~O~'(%~~~.'" ')'
    Article 13.12a, Subsection (l), Texas Election Code, pro-
    vides that:
    "Where the incumbent of an office has
    submitted a resignation to become effective
    at a future date, the vacancy shall be deemed
    to occur upon acceptance of the resignation."
    In addition, the general rule is stated in 43 American
    Jurisprudence 25, Public Officers, Section 170:
    II
    . . . And it has been held that a public
    officer who has freely tendered an absolute
    and unconditional resignation to take effect
    in the future may not withdraw the resignation
    after it has been duly accepted by the proper
    authority, even though the time at which it
    is to take effect has not arrived."
    In accord, Board of Education v. Rose, 
    285 Ky. 217
    , 
    147 S.W.2d 83
    (lgbl), 132 A L R 969 Rogers v. Carleton, 
    188 Okla. 470
    , 110
    P.2d go8 (19&i); &ti.$ R C L* Murray v. State, 
    115 Tenn. 303
    89 S.W. 101 
    (1908), 5 Amm: ia;. b87 Anno: lb L.R.A. (NS) 1056;
    L.R.A. 1917 F 547; 
    36 Am. St. Rep. 52
    :. We find no Texas case
    authorities to the contrary, but on the other hand the Texas
    cases hold that a public officer is not entitled to withdraw
    his resignation after the acceptance by the proper authority.
    47 Tex.J&.2d 75, Public Officers, Set; 50; Amarillo v. Medknhal
    
    276 S.W.2d 868
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1955, error ref., n.r.e.); Sadler v
    Jester, 
    46 F. Supp. 7
    7 (N.D. Tex., 1942); Sawyer v. City of San
    Antonio, 
    149 Tex. 40
    2 , 
    234 S.W.2d 398
    (1950). A t common law,
    the resignation is complete when acce ted by the proper authori-
    ties. See.State v. Stickley, 
    805 Cow. 84
    , 
    61 S.E. 211
    ~,213 (1908).
    The Commissioner's Court thus could validly accept the
    resignation without simultaneously appointing a successor and
    having him qualify. However, until the successor is appointed
    or elected and qualifies, the officer in question is still under
    a mandatory duty to continue to serve in the vacant office as
    a "hold-over" by reason of Article XVI, Section 17, Constitution
    of Texas. Plains Common Consol. School Dist. No. 1 v. Hayhurst,
    -3153-
    .   .
    Honorable Glen Aaron, Page 3 (M- 659)
    
    122 S.W.2d 322
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1938, no writ           F&eatherson,
    
    69 S.W. 983
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1902, error ref.             SWR    C?
    v. 
    Ankenbauer, supra
    ; Attorney General Opinion No. V-76O*(i&)~
    In the case of Jones v. City of Jefferson, 
    66 Tex. 576
    ,
    
    1 S.W. 903
    (1886), supra
    , the Supreme Court of Texas interpreted
    Article XVI, Section 17, Constitution of Texas, as requiring the
    resigning officer whose resignation has been acce~pted,to con-
    tinue In office as a hold-over officer subject only to the suc-
    cessor's qualificat,ion,at which time his status as such officer
    ceased.   In the course of the opinion, the Court said:
    "It is held by the Supreme Court of the
    United States, following the decision of the
    Supreme Court of Illinois in the same case,
    that under the statute of that state, which,
    like that of Texas, declares that all officers
    shall hold over until their successors are
    elected and qualified, an officer, whose reslg-
    nation has been tendered to the proper authority
    and accepted, continues in office and is not
    released from Its duties and responsibilities
    until his successor is appointed or chosen, and
    qualified. Badger v. U.S., 
    93 U.S. 599
    [
    23 L. Ed. 9911
    .”
    Consequently, while there has been a legal resignation
    unqualifiedly accepted, the resignation of the officer is not
    deemed 'fully effective," so far as he is concerned, until the
    appointment and qualification of a successor. It does not follow,
    however, that the officer may withdraw his resignation because of
    his "hold-over" status after it has been acted upon and accepted
    by the proper authorities. Nor does it follow that a "vacancy"
    has not thereby been created subject to being filled by the proper
    authorities.
    SUMMARY
    Where a County Attorney submitted his absolute
    and unconditional resignation to take effect in the
    future, he may not withdraw it after it has been
    duly accepted by the Commissioner's Court, even
    though the time at which it was to take effect has
    not arrived. Until a successor has been appointed
    and qualified, the County Attorney has a continuing
    -.3154--
    _       .
    ,       ,
    Honorable Glen Aaron, page 4 (M-659)
    duty to serve in the vacant office as a hold-
    over under the requirement of Article XVI,
    Section 17; Constitution of
    Prepared by R. L..Lattimore
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    'OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    John Reeves
    Gordon Cass
    Roland Allen
    Ronnie Carr
    Meade F. Griffin
    Staff Legal Assistant
    Alfred Walker
    Executive Assistant
    Nola White
    First Assistant
    -3155-