Honorable Ii. Pat Edwards Civil District Attorney Hall of Recotids Dallas, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion Number O-3774 Re: Proceeds of bond funds of Common School Districts. We acknowledge receipt of your opinion re- quest of recent date and quote from your letter as followe? "The Reinhardt CommonSchool District No. 16 of Dallas County, In the Fall of 1940, by an election duly called and held, voted favorably for the issuance of $35,000.00 Schoolhouse Bonds 'for the purpose of provld- ing funds to be expended in payment of accounts legally contracted in constructing and equlp- ping a'public free school building of materi- als other than wood; installing necessary sanitary Improvements and purchasing addition- al school grounds in and for said district', In the ptieparation of preliminary orders and for the 'purpose of presenting the bond trane- eript to your department for approval, the School Board hired and paid W. P. Dumaa, an attorney-at-law of Dallas County, Texas, the sum of $150.00 attorney's fee, and also paid the sum of $74.50 for the printing of the bonds. When the bonds were offered for sale on March 15, 1941, a joint bid was received from Jam&s, Stayart & Davis, Inc. and Beckett, G,llbert & Co., Inc., a true and correct copy of which is herewith enclosed, and which bid you will observe wa8 contingebtupon the 'si- multaneous acceptance by the Board of True- t;ees of the District of the attached contraot. Honorable R. Pat Edwards, page 2 (O-3774) By paragraph 2 of the attached contract it appears these alleged bond buyers agreed that at thelr expense and with the assistance of the trustees @to secure and compile all nec- essary data and Information and to prepare all necessary forms and to do all things nec- essary to a full and fair presentation of application for the sale of said bonds by the District to the State Board of Education for InvCstment In the Permanent School Fund’, and In consideration of such servicers it ap- pears from the contract that the Board of Trustees agreed to pay the purported buyers the sum of $500.00 caah. And, It will be observed further that this contract provided that this sum Ishould be paid regardless of whether the bonds were delivered to these purported buyers or to the State Board of Education. “As stated above, the Board of Trustees had already contracted to pay Mr. Dumae~the 8um of $150.00 attorney’s fee for preparing the bond transcript and presenting the same to your department, and the sum of $74.50’ expense of printing the bonda, and a6 ehown by the attached letter from James, Stayart & Davla, Inc. on March 15ti-1, 1941, when this contract in question was entered into, the School District had already prepared to a great extent the Application Form for pre- senting the bonds to the State Board of Edu- cation, so that it was necessary to do very little to complete this minor part of the proposed services. Therefore, aa explained by these buyera, their services consisted in this reepect ‘almost solely of the prl- mary part of the within described full and fair presentation of Application’. This is- 8ue of bond8 was duly purchased by the State Board of Education for the price of par and accrued Interest plus a premium of $519.99. The County Superintendent of Schools was not advised of this contract, and subsequent to the receipt of the purchaee price of the bonds from the State Board of Education, he joined in the payment of the attorney’s fee and cost of printing the bonds, but Honorable H. Pat Edwards, page 3 (O-3774) when presented wfth a request to join with the,Trustees in the payment of $500.00 to these alleged bidders for their so-called ,, servibes,~ the effect of which was to require' V;he State Board of Education to bid above par and accrued Interest for the bonds, re- fused to authorize such payment and addressed an Inquiry to this office as to the legality of~paylng from the proceeds of thfs bond is-