Case Information
*1 MaJr 23, 1939 , Opinion Noe o-840 Hon. T. M. Trimble First Assistant State
Re: Whether bonds voted for the purpose of repairing ana equip- Superintendent Austin, Texas ~plng school building may be used
for the purchase of school busses.
Dear Sir:
We are in receipt of your letter of May 17, 1939, wherein you request our opinion in response to the following questions:
“1. If a school,district votes bonds for the purpose or repairing end equipping a school building, and to purchase school site, would It be legal for the board to spend this bond money for school busses or to pay bus notes?
“2. Of what offense if any, would the board be guilty if they did spend iond money for busses? What would the penalty be, if any?e~
Article 2784 Revised Civil Statutes, sets forth certain purposes for w tL ch the oommissionersf court for the common school districts In its county, and the district school trustees for the independent school districts may levy taxes and issue bonds. It is therein provided that “no tax shall be levied, collected, abrogated, dlminisheed or inoreased, and no bonds shall be issued hereunder, until such action has been authorized by a majority of the votes cast at for such purpose, at which an election held in the district none but property tax paying qualified voters of such dis- trict shall be entitled to vote.*
Article 2786, Revised Civil Statutes, requires the petition, election order and notice of election to distinctly the purpose for which the bonds speaify among other things, are to t e used. It also provides that the proceeds of such bonds l*shall be disbursed only for the purpose for which the said bonds were issuedrU
In the case of Carroll v. Williams, 202 Sew. 504, the use of county funds for purposes different from those for which the same wer.e raised was involved. We quote from the *2 Hon. T. M. Trimble, page 2
opinion of the Supreme Court as follows:
“Second. Going to the real gist of the main issue before us, section 9 of article a of our state Constitution, supra, inNbits any and all transfers of tax money from one to another of the several classes of funds therein authorized, and, as a sequence, the expenditure, for one purpose therein defined, of tax money raised ostensibly for another such purpose. The immediate purpose in so pre,scribing a separate maximum tax rate for each of the classes of purposes there enumerated is, no doubt, to limit, accordingly the amount of taxes which may be raised from 8he people, by taxation, declaredly for those several purposes or classes of purposes, respectively. But that is not all. The ultimate and practical and ob- vlous design and purpose aa legal effect Is to inhibit excessive expenditures for any such pur- pose or class of purposes. By necessary implica- a tion said provisions of section 9 of article were designed, not merely to limit the tax rate for certain therein designated purposes, but to require that any and all money raised by taxa- tion for any such purpose shall be applied, faith- fully, to that particular purpose, as’needed. there- for, and not to any other purpose or use whatso- ever. Those constitutional provisions control, not only the raising, but also the application, OP all such funds; and such Is the legal effect of articles 2242 and 7357, supra, when properly construed and applied.”
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in the above case applies with full force to the situation which you outlined to us. The bonds which you mention were voted for the purpose of repairing and equipping a school building and to purchase a school site . The electorate authorized the same under the as- ’ surance that the proceeds of the bonds would not be used for
any other purpose. Speaking of Article 6674e, Revised Civil Statutes, providing for the deposit of certain moneys in the State Highway Fund, the Austin Court of Civil Appeals, through Chief Justice McClendon in the case of Johnson vs. Ferguson, 55 S.W.(2d) 153, said:
“As such allocation we think it had the mani- fest purpose of removing such fund, beyond all doubt *3 _
Hon. T. M. Trimble, page 3
or peradventurei from the general revenue fund of the state an of devoting it, but not appro- priating it, to the stated purpose. It served the double purpose of a declaration of policy and a direction to the state treasurer that the fund was not to be invaded for purposes other than those named in the article.”
The proceeds of the bonds which you mention cannot be invaded for any purpose except the purpose for which such bonds were voted. Your first question is answered in the negative.
The diversion of this money from the stated purpose being quite plainly forbidden, we think it is to be assumed that the authorities having charge of this money will not use the same for any prohibited purpose, and we, therefore, do not believe that it is necessary to anew.er your second question.
Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS By /s/ Glenn B. Lewis Glenn R.~ Lewis, Assistant APPROVED
/s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
BY: CEK, CHAIRMAN
GRL:N:wb