MaJr 23, 1939 , 

Hon. T. M. Trimble Opinion Noe o-840 

First Assistant State Re: Whether bonds voted for the 

Superintendent 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

purpose of repairing ana equip- 

~plng school building may be used 

for the purchase of school busses. 

We are in 

wherein you request 

questions: 

receipt of your letter of May 17, 1939, 

our opinion in response to the following 

“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 

an election held in the district for such purpose, at which 

none but property tax paying qualified voters of such district shall be entitled to vote.* 

Article 2786, Revised Civil Statutes, requires the 

petition, election order and notice of election to distinctly 

speaify 

are to t 

among other things, the purpose for which the bonds 

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 
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 obvlous design and purpose aa legal effect Is to 

inhibit excessive expenditures for any such purpose or class of purposes. By necessary implication said provisions of section 9 of article a 

were designed, not merely to limit the tax rate 

for certain therein designated purposes, but to 

require that any and all money raised by taxation for any such purpose shall be applied, faithfully, to that particular purpose, as’needed. therefor, and not to any other purpose or use whatsoever. 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 manifest purpose of removing such fund, beyond all doubt 
_ 

Hon. T. M. Trimble, page 3 

or peradventurei from the general revenue fund 

of the state an of devoting it, but not appropriating 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