Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS lionorable R. 8. Wyehe
county Auditar
Gregg county
LonevIew, PePas
Dear alrr
w* have your let
upon the following qyest
r, the or relies OS desiltute per- y of this your and the cait- 4 oontraet with merchants to nemessitiies and lilaie warrant8 emed (lV,VVV, to pay Zer , $esO, These warrents tire baing aerdaents by the lwil bank at aoa that tke warrants may be ex- rpm~mttoOaaua~X,l9#L I
Honorable R. 5. Wyahe, paga #8
“‘(3) A juagnteat u5s had against the oounty sor $8le.o0. Them being no funds on hand to pay same, a time warrant us6 Ismod due 19ovember 1, 1939 for it8 payment. The holder agrees to ertend time or p5ymentto Jaxluary 1, 1011.
Vmper tax Levi and slaklng fund was in eaah case pmperli 6et up.
*The tax ramlsslon bill reaently pa8sad the' lagislatum is the reason Sor extension.- ft Is not.detewinabla from tha taota dlsoiosad whetbar or not the wTima Warrentsw ware 1egall.f Issued, and we are, therefore, not passing upon their le@alltr', but wu think the power of the C~aalonera * Court to extend the tlxw of their payment mart detol~s upon the westion whathsr the desodbsd obligations uara intendad to be paid out of ourrent funds or werato.avldanoealoaa agaln8tfuturefand*rmrrhiah thef were to paid aml for rbloh a tar had ban pmvlded.
TOIL bare denoniln6ted the obligation *Time warianiw. Artlole Z568a 02 tfs Retlwa Clvll Statute8 deH.nas *Tiao Issued by a oity aountf not pay- Warr5nt?“as any warrant able out oi ourrent fund*; and it defines mourrent fundsa as lnolading money in the treamary, in pmaesr of ool- taxes leotion during suah tax year and all othar revenue8 rblah mar be antlolpatad with rea8onabla aertalnty during mah tax year.
In providing a tax levy for e&h insue, it appaclrs that it wa8 Intended a loan agala6t ruture revenue8 be pade, but in setting the maturity data8 of tsuohharrants, January 1, 1940, for the first twe issues, and Korember 1, lQS9 third lssae above deaorlbeb, we can not oonoelrs that it was definitely contemplated that 6ua& obligations were to paid Srcm revenues derived rma taxes for the year lQ4V. We nunt assume, however, that the lntsntion was to barraw against future revenues, and advise that in our opipion the provi8iop of Artsale Z?MSa of tiw Revised Civil Statutes nmat have been ~followed In the leauanoa of the warrant8 and that the refund- ing 07 +endlng thereof 1s Zikewlse governed br this statute.
72
Honorabls R. SI Wyche, page #3
Tha oaae of Aahby v. James, Zi%b 8. '19. 9S2, held that "tha ooamlaaionera* court has no authority to borrow moneJr by means OS warrants; this map done only by the isming of bonds*. And further that "bafora warrants may be laaued dlreetlng the treaaarer to pay money out of any fund, there anaat exist an obligation valid in law.*
Artlole gSd&, known as the Bond and Warrant Law, wae~ eneeted in 1931 aubsequent to the holding in the above' quoted 0888, and in our opinion provides the only mmumr in whloh time warrant8 can be laauad, and. also the only nay in whloh aama oan be ertended or ref'uniled, with without oonaent of the holders. See Seotlon 9, subaeotion: (6) there- of the steps neaeaaary to be taken in re-ng itams at lndebts6nssa.
We think that the mason underlying tha proposed ax- tension or refunding beoomes lxmt~lal In riew of our oon- elualon that Artlole .23&i of ths Raised Civil 8tatutea aUSt govara any auoh action the ooamisaloners* oaart.
It may be well to point out hera in (LoaQrdanaa with tha deolalon handed down by the Supreme Court in the recent oaae, City of Wauo v. Mann, l89 8. W. (84) 899, that any money in the ak&lng SunU to the oredlt of any isum muat used to retire ao auieh of said debt as rraid sum ulll permit, and only aueh debt aa raaalns unpaid ahall be extended rsfnaded. To:.use these runds for any other purpore muld oonatltuta e diversion of anoh fur&s es la inhibited by Articles 839 to 841 of the Retiaad Olrll Statutes of Texas.
Trusting that the foregelng aatl6feetorlly anwem
your question, we are
Very truly years APPRC)VE“AUG 18, 1939 OPINION
COMMC-TEE