Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

.._ ‘. r .‘... OFFICE OF THE A%TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAE AUSTIN mc.MAII1( I””OUtllAb n ad la the detmm~natioa of As to the relationship b~,affinit~, the rule ir that the busban& stan~r in the ma6 degree of relationrhfp to the ,blood relatives of the ,xiiey by aff’initr,i6 doe8 the rite by consangulaity. Thue saoh of the xballrs involved iard;eq to the nlfe*8 a,isterin the firrt degree by . . ‘,:- 450 Honorable ?red ErIsBan, Fd&'# Each of the prinoi&lBs above enunolatmd were dlroureed in opinion No. 0-2@5, with reieronae to author- itirs. The more reriour question involved was likrriro deoided ln that opinion! whether, a&itting thalr relation- ship to the blood relatives of their respeotive wives by affinity, the two husbands were related to each other by atilnity. Though reoogniaing an apparent oonfliot between our oourts of aIri1 and our oourte oi orimlnal furledlotion, the one following the majority rule holding that the two husbands are not related, the other adopting the minority rule that the husbands are related to eaoh other by aWIn- Ity wlthin the sake degree that eaoh bears to ths sister Of 61s wife, we ielt oonetrainod, beoaueo the eatoreement ot our nepotism law Ie committad to our oourts o? oriminal juri8dIotion, to announoe that the rule adopted by the Court of Criminal A~ppaale in the Strfngfellorr ease, re- ferred to in opinion No. O-2225, governs. Xe adhere to the views aspreseed In that opinion, You are therefore advised that the City Commissioner and the prospective appointee are related to each other within the first degree by aiflnity. ArtSole 432 and A@Iole 433, of our Penal Code, therefore, prohibits the appointraent. Yours very truly ATTORBEY CllWHUL OY TltXAS BP R. M. Blrohlfd Asmlstant -I- ATTORNEY GE ERAL OF TEXAS