Case Information

*1 THEATTORNEYGENERAL

OF TEXAS

Aus-I-IN~x.T~~A~

Honorable C. Burtt Porter

County Attorney

8an Patrlcio County

Sinton, Texas Opinion HO. o-3821

Dear Slrr

Rer Uould the State Bo&rd of Education be

compelled to surrender bonds of Sinton Independent School District now held by the Board of Education, Bold bonds not having a aall date, providing refunding bonds be voted for the express purpose OS refunding the outstanding bonds in order to obtain 8 lower interest rate.

We acknowledge receipt of your opinion request of July 25, and quote from your letter a6 Sollower

“The Slnton Independent School District leeued

bonds ,in 1933 or ‘34 which were purchased by the State Board of Education.

The following questions arise: "1 . Would the State Board of Education or State Treasurer, as custodian, be compelled to surrender bonds of the Independent School District now held by the Board of gducatlon; said bonds not having a calldife, providing refunding bonds was voted by the people for the express puppose of reSUndlng the outstanding bonds In order to obtain a lower interest rate?

"2. Where an Independent school district has

out&an&g bonds that are owned by the State Board of Education, and three (3s) per cent refunding bonda could be issued to retire the five (5%) per cent bonds, would the State Board of Education be required to surrendtr the 5% bonds, although such bonds had no call date.

Ue have been unable to locate a Texas case squarely in point but we believe that the well established rule is laid down by the Supreme Court of Kansas In the case of State ex rel Parker, Attorney General v. gtz School Fund Commission, et al, 103 Pac. (2d) 8011

“It 1s well settled that ln the absence of a

provision thereSor, either In the bonds or an applicable statute, municipal bonds issued for a certain number of years are not redeemable before maturity without the con- sent of the persona holding them”.

'Itonorable C. Burtt tarter, We ^[2] *2 o-3821 _

r l also 4 4 C.J. 1235; Ikte v. Keith (8upretae Court of Brenham v. Oenmn-American Bank, 144 U.S. 173. Okla.) 66 Pac. W) 10591

There 18 no constitutional or 8tatutory rovlslon ln this may be redeemed Before mater ty at the option of P Itate provldlng th8t bonds the rchool dirtrict. The aahool district may, however, reserve In the bonds an option to redeem.

In view of the foregoing It Is our oplnlon that a school district has no authority to call bonds prior to their maturity date the will of the owner, in the absence of express stipulation there- against for' in the bonds.

Therefore, both of your questions are answered in the negative.

Trusting that this answers your question, we are

Very truly yours ATTORNEYOENERALOFTXXAS By s/ Claud 0. Boothman Claud 0. Boothman Assistant

COB- E-WC

APPROVED AU0 21, 1941

a/ Oerald C. Mann

AWORNIE QmBRAL OF TBXAS

Approved Opinion Committee By s/(tvB Chalrman