Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
JfoaOl’6b16 8. L. Warhburn
CountJ AudItor
gsrrla county
goutlto3l, Texas
Dear slrt
1*‘4 ha00 I’0C~iV.d JOUl- 36
th6 matter uaptlotmd above. ml
held thattibte oreatedbya
vbluh owate a defiolenq in
vldAt1cm of lav 8nd orart a
Oth6l’ VOzd6, th6 kX’U are not au&tied
t0 6E66t6 CL debt Of tbQ di6tZ’iUt Of P
fa6tiU m (StQtt66bOr
gov4rn the cmhaol
Uipf46, 8Bd $Wtl 86k th8t
VO qUOt4 fXWl JOUF ktt6r:
bitt 3ChoOl Distrlat
“2. Hay satd Dtotriat pay frora ourmat t.ax61, old
obli,~sttona Incurred in prior scdmlastfc or calea&w
ye4rtt for vh%ckc, at the tfm4 they vem faaurred, DO
eptOifiC pPWL61Cstl b&d bWXl nude for w-t OXQ6pt
f%lTi thaIl OuPrent f%X48? @tI’XWllt t&X46 fOl’ thO64 pal-6
prOP6d inauff”ioisak for ourrent opas%ttayg 6iqxm646, aad
e6 to an wovat gwat;sr than the vuhool fwi$ e&OF-
t1Qnod to that distr;rict for twt mhola8tio ye8r. %%i6
lialtatiaau9wl t%8 mvarob th4tl%*t64a satltex~tbe
tt#.ttHcctvft.h the tiher5 n6uoawlly Isalt at0 prs-
PIOX& of the Ocbt~ thltt ~&$-it be oontraated to tbs amount
ur th% fund vhfch b8lcm.ged to tha ti8trl6t for #6t y6aP,
sal any &ebt cantreoted -tier then that vunld k e
visl,.stlm of the l&V, had Gonst1tut0 rl0 olsla -lx&St
tha di6tPfGt. The mix appxwprlated ballg Itxwnnt, azld
me tm&ert Of 8Ghm.b d4&onarlwd, the 1eilgCh al the tezr
t4 bs tsmght lrtsa4 SLX vltb WPteinq the p-104 tQ be
paLd to tis6i t6whQr* snd E&oQld med bQ lPi814d &out it.
%%4 tmlst64e vm-6 mukk0rl.a~ ka aapoad ?a% 6uEl Ost
apart t8 the d.f8t``6t, but imt stcpwsx6d to aontrikst
8 debt m~g4nst the OSJ&I ab f?%tztre posse . = (X@ma~s
8uppl~b.t )
Yhi8 Mae van bstolr the 3upTaw cawpt on esTttr%su
qtwrtfsas. In view af ths above quoted tioldbg tiw Court of
~2~23 Appeals held ths r0m kr disp~mimg of tb~ M:
* l * l In the cam ai Culberson v. BWc (T8x.
Cfv. A *.) 50 3. W. 195, tt uas held by tha eaurt
of QlYlBf app4414 Of the Plitr4 HapTeme judiolal d?.s-
trict that the school fund& of an fsar aould be
tusd la tbs pqausntol the ladebtedna8s af a pns#d-
%iat?i&tes, altbaughltls
at d letriots
tsaahe`` aball not em&e
provldect Snmtial~
a Us?lafsnc!y debt
3959
the district.’ In t&s ea8s of Em& v. Hamb
Cir. App.) 51 9. W. 266, It vae held W ths afnart of
alvll appsala 0S tha Saaand suprme ju&ieLsl dirtriot
170, to osrtlfy tko qkleIstlon ta the SupPans wt.
San aasue~ to that queattcn 5.e udu, held that tim
ssbcml fumd of tee par aal& not be uukd ta pay aft
th0 dabt Of 4&Ou.W pi. !54 S.W. 102% St mh3WB
mat tb4 pst1tion otat*~a so bauF6 al aotlen, u&u tbs
(Eaphaai~ rrrrppliad]
Thtul, It is npprimt that the ‘Joholaatie ysar IS the
em suntrapbted br Artlals 2749 with rshwwk0e to te8aWrs1
ueatTacts.
fn the r6?wmt tm44 of Tsuplwan Ccmso~ sahcaa Blat so.
1 of Bmsos County Y. 30yd B9. Tiead CO., 8tJl?M, &fntiff 6-d tb
8ehcwl dlatclot to Tlxxw4r cm trs varmurtr imnaed in papsa of
-1 wnrmnto, and worn dated Fsbz’wwy 22, 1.933,
February 22, lC@+, and A&l I, 1934. Them ua4 a0 shmdag that
t.b d.i8triOt had Elny &tQ4i,hblQ f’tE& @Xl h8Ud fCW tb4 fSlW f@l=
uhleh the purchw4 Y'CLSaads, and the colsrt, rpbaiclng t.hmugh
titiee Al~ii&dW, fn hoSa t&t ~'GaoVery atid aat bo, bd QA
tbo VaTpate had the follalrwg to say:
' *I + * 3% oth4r wcwU4~ all of the fund4 ae-
aruliag to i&e &atriat ror tno cuTrent wae61 y*aT
bad gmvioualy be- ag3pPuprmxta far 0th.~ purpo6er
at 2124 tit834 the dsbt in q~astiaa was SJmmTsu. + * *
g&lo Ii. L,. wamhburm,P-0 5
‘slate the tmhool dfmtriot did not, a: the
tina tlw cantrant vm anteFed into, nm during that
scrhohsttc pass, have avatlable or aacrnrlng ff to
?bds amwqsary to mot the abltgatlan, the trustvear
lrexw vlthalt wtboritr t30 inour tha uobt." haspha-
41s supplied)
see also t&s uase Qf F"LFst mu. Ban!& of
J&mhisoa ~SaUepttadoat School D&at., 2x4 S. W. (2%)
w court safd the foolloving:
ln r ler Qf th e 60 autho~ittis it is OUF o p l& la n that
tl# trruteo6 of A 4 c heul ufotrict em vitih m t auth6rity ta lne u r
a debt in a cmt&n ye&r grwU.w !&an the avatlableftan& oa hand
01 uhtah are nsoeorurb4antiuipatetl for th4t year. St im also
mu- oplnloa that the aeholimtia yew, and not th4 aaleadm y8e,
gevorzbs the opertrttan of 8daoGl distc2crts uith retpeat tcl zac
ima’- ob~li~aticms.
we are not unm- sf th4 ikat that the ttolla66~on of
Am in the cnae of Uarr~z; et al Y. t3aa$erSadepsadmt 36heel
Dirt. et al., '2&l; fi. 'L'. 159, used hr.qu6g4 whleh ecnald possibly
k uqpd tci support the oorit4xM’xI that the 66lmdsr p6r is the
pawpar ,Jrerar lib&n it ram
I Ho@sable H. L. Washbum, page 6
In apeaifically anawerlng the three questions which you
have propounded, v8 OllIEinste the WOrdS "C414ndW year' fr~41
6uah questions because of our holding that the scholastic year
is thQ proper one. In vlev of the foregoing authorltles and
discussion, we ansver your first question in the negative. We
-,m~r yanr second and third questions as Pollovst Debt8 may
not be contracted greater than the amount of available funda on
w or that may be reasonably antlakpated for that who01 year.
A debt created In excess of such edsount la void and constitutes
a~ 01alm against the district. Obllgatlons expressly payable
out of funds nooNing t0 the distriQt in a SUbSeqtWIh scholastic
rmr may not validly be created by the trustees of a school dls-
trict; such obligations are void and create no liability vhatso-
ever en the part of the dlstrlat. If in a prevloua year a debt
qss validly c-ted In reasonable anticlpatlon of revenues to be
collected for that year, but the fund 80tually realized vas ln-
rufflcient to dis&a~e the SLIIM),such debt may be paid from the
delinquent taxe8 of such prevl0u6 rear or years prior thereto.
Suah a debt cannot be paid frcsu the revenues of a Subaequ*nt y-oar,
rt least unless there is an a&IIal surp1ue in tho fund after the
direbarge of al1 the obligations of auoh subsequent year3 however,
as there ia no swh surplus in the fund of the school dlatrlct
lnv41ved, It Is not neaessery for 06 to pass up011 this point, and
v4 express no op.tiionthereon.
VepY tNlyyeIW6
AT!l'ORXBYO%ll%I?AI,
OF TEXAS
l&/--I*A?-~.,
.-,
,,y 7:" ~: