Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
Bonorabh D. Riuh8z-d Vogaa
County Attormy
Ullson ccunty
Flox6avllls, T6XfM
SPOPI gouP
Honorable D. Richard Vogeu, Page 2
having duly waived notioa snd filed his raiusal to
proraauta daliuquant tax suits, and such contraot
having baen duly spprovod by the Ccmptmller end
Attorney Canoral.
“That vhL1a and during the tfne that such con-
tract betveen W. E. Seals and Wilcon Couhty, vas fn
fill foroe and affect, the Lsvernia Xndopendant
school District entered into the oontract vith ?iurphy
Xarper br Company. The County Delinwant tax collaot-
or vaa handling tha aollaatloa of taxas in such
sahool dirtriot, M filing malts vharaver naoassmy,
by virtue of his contrsot vith the County.
“The County Attorney of’ Wlleon Couhty, did not
hava say kuowladgo of the propoaad oohtract batveen
the Levernis School District and tha Xurphy Xnrpar Ib
Ccmpnny, and did rmt recalve any notice to file de-
liaQwz& tax 8uitr iOr auah dlstrlat, aor did ha axe-
cute any valvar, other thau with refersnae to the
Scale Contract vlth the County.
*The contraat provide8 Sor aaapaarotfon under
pnr@gPnph VIII1 ‘first Party ay~aas to pay to saoond
Party as oompansatlau far the semices hereunder ra-
quixwd $350.00 Dollars, payable out of tha f’lnt aal-
leotions of dalinquent taxes, panaltiaa and interest
aollacrtad$ to pnrtially ~OVOP the toate OS &eok%ng
tha dal.iniwent tax roLl8, 8tationery, atrunpr, 8nd
other prollmlxary costs to ba lnaurred 2.n the prforr-
an60 of this omtraot$ and @m sdditlonal aaopnt aqua1
to fiftsan pax oant (IL!@) of the amount aolloatad of
all delinquent taxes, panaltias, and tntoraat for tha
years soverad thareby, actually collaotad and paid to
the aollactor of taxes dur%ng the term of this aontraat.
l l fk fW
Under the facts presented 5.x your letter of Doeambar 23,
191, ua held l.u Opinion Ho. O-4298, sddresaed to you, thst the
aontraet between Xurphy Harper 8 Carrpauy and the Lavam3.a Indopeu-
dent School ??iatPiCt WA8 Void.
The powam of independent sahool district trustees ara
given lxi 37 Tax. Jur. p. 939, vhara It Fs aaldc
Honorabls D. Rluhard Vog.8, Page 3
“As 18 the rule ``mtrally * l l tha tru8to.r
of ladepamdent who01 dlrtrlotm passers oaly the
powers expnmly eonfemwd by law or ~aeoowarlly
Implied from potmrs aonferred. l l l
In the cam of Temple Inde endonE Schaol Dlmtrlct va.
Proator (Clv. App.) 97 3. W, (26) 10g 7, it vas held that Artlole
2780, R. C. S., 1925, la appllaabls to all topea OS Independent
dtstriots whether in lnoorporated oltler or not. lib think that
said Artlsle 2780 authorimw the trustees of the Lavemla Inde-
pendent Sahaol Dlstrlot to lnstltute suit for the raooverg OS
money paid out by It under the provlalons OS a void oontraat.
Your question I* therefore aaavered In tha aSSlmatlve.
Iaura very truly
ATTOIOlgll (WWRAL OF TRXAS