I Rem 1 Eay school dlstrip~ts.a&e &fund to the State out of therr funds~fo3!~~ the ourrent year to take care~f--a~,orpaj~ents.re- the Auditing De- ts ecnt to districts ualization Department,, out in your request t&t the oocaslon for s brought about by the fact that some ty l.istea &OS58 ineligi- salary aid, and after o tho districts, the State Auditor di~covored this foot and found that aotuelly the districts v;ere not entitled to hire as many teachers as were employed, and Viere not entitlea to as much salary aid as was sent, and the State Auditor had payment stopped on some of' the state warrants for that reason.

V;lth respect to the fir~st portion of your inquiry asp quoted above, we fcof that it would be Improper for us to *2 Honorable L. n. 'znompson, Page 2

answer same, as the only parties interested in an answer to that portion oft your request are private banking institu- .tions holding these warrants, Mom we are prohiblted,~ by Article 4599, Rgvinad Civil .St?tutos, 1925, from advising. &&ever, we c-ill state that your assumption that the banks could be innocent purchasers of these State vfarrants inths sense of an innocent purchaser of a negotiable instrument, is incorrect.

F5.th respeot to the second portion of your request, it is the opinion-of this department that the school dis- tricts are not authorized to pay for any deficiencies of the fiscal year 193% *En9 out of their funds for the fiscal -year 1959-'40, as it would be in' violation of Articles 2749 and 2027 of the.Revised Civil Statutes, 1925.

The Supreme Court in Collier vs. Feacock (1900), 54 S. FJ. 1027, held tha t a Board of Trustees was not author- ized to execute a teachers contract which would cause a dcficlency debtagainst the school fund of the district for any particular year. The same dootrine has been extended and applied not only to teachers* contracts,~but to other obligations such .as the purchase of supplies, e~quuipmant, and permanent improvements to the school properties.

In Tapleman Common School District Vs. BOyd B., Hesd Company (T.C.A. 1937), 101 S-W. (2d) 352, two warrants issued in payment for oeptio toileta, said warrants were being dated February 22, 1933, due February 22, 1934, and April 1, 1934. These were renewal warrants and there was no shoviing that the district had any available funds on hand for the year for which the purchase was made. The court in holding that recovery Could not be ha8 on said war- rants stated: "%hile the language used in said statUt8

(2749) refers specifically to.a deficienoy created in the employment of teachers, it has been held that it applies with equal force to de.bts incurred in the purchase of equipment. In thie connection, the Court of Civil Appeals in Stephenson vs. ?hiiOn 38stfng co., 62 S.'?. 128, 129, in refierring to the holding of the Supreme Court in Collier vs. Peacock, supret said:

Honorable L. R. Thompson, Page 3 ~'

H'Xt,is~held that a warrant for a teacherl~s salary in e.xcess'of'the sum apportioned to the district for the year cannot be made.a charge upon the funds of a subsequent year. Article 3959 (now Article 2749) vaa construed as a limitation upon the pcn.ers of the trustee to contract any debt which~would cause a deficiency in the school fund of the district. Vhile the article applies alone to corrtracts for teachers' salaries, we think the construction placed upon it by the Sup- reme Court applies with equal force to the articles controlling the purchase of school furniture.'R

We'trust that the foregoing satisfactorily answer8 your inquiry.

Yours very truly ATTORXEY GSNEP&L OF TXEAS D.. D. Eahon Assistant