bold thut 3ahool districtdhavo ~0 z&i-d OL‘ authoritjr to.enter i;lto ouch contraots, ruch contracts. cm alearly ultra viras.

R n . . l . Your l&tar continues by citing 10 Tax. Jur. pp. 135 to 1.87 an& by slotiug your c~xCtz3fon a Sire in- that by a inutwl ooqmny on property be- ~.~y~:;CC pcllcy iasus8 -lo= -.*-i U,+-g to c 3ohcol district could not be cr.fozced by tho ~:~.~,~~c$ actor 1% &6 suflered 3 fire 1033 on tiuoh property. *3 a ~cwX.~f, of tko sciiool distziotts crocit. ?ho Opinion r~-dc~&zcu thc.t the llabillty of t&e nolic?rLiolear la ttot _ Cara w.ti ihit8d t0 thG ?re ti*ua sp3aii%xl La the policy.

03 the ccatrury auoh doci3133. ic bzsed equsrely or& t:o ~rort?C that tho.polioyholk - ian a mutual inr?umnce ccri1;_3az;T besoms in efToct a stookholC!er ar~d the oonstitu- :io;?;l provision quoted by you prohibits a retool blstrict Snx beomin~ such a stoo'kholifsr. It follo:~3 that the oere Scot that p,-etikim nero paid by third parties would not aS- rect ths cc~ool.~istrict~s r&-&t or lack of right to beoom a px- -*+cyhol&or in a~nutual insurance ompany. 38 therefore agree that the coatYaot of iwmxnoe is illegal evea though . et.- wa~ pYZiW9 is not paid by thG OChOoi GiStYfOt.

As ve un&xstunU your,lettor no. policy h& as yi3t $xz2 ItcUOd by the mtual Cori~ to tha SOhOOl aif3w0t and thmofore tiio quo&loo.-& to whether or not there is any 3r5rciplo 'or mthozI by wh&h the distrfot Could .OOilGCt~ fO* rt;, loss a3xr.a.Sire oooua*reU in purely hypothotLoal and ~$8 Co zot bvlieve this,depE+.Uent should czp,ress an opinion thorooix.

%'G hopa.thGt thiG'&siOn viii1 be htip,fUi t0 pOU IX ",~a dc~omimtion of your problen.

DonaldGay .Assistant