MaJr23, 1939 ,

Hon. T. M.Trimble Opinion 

### Noeo-840 First Assistant State Re: Whether bonds voted for the Superintendent Austin, Texas Dear Sir: purpose of repairing 

### anaequip- ~plngschool building maybe used for the purchase of school busses.

Weare in wherein you request questions: receipt of your letter of May17, 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 moneyfor school busses or to pay bus notes?

“2. Ofwhat offense if any, would the board be guilty if they did spend iond moneyfor busses? What would the penalty be, if any?e~ Article 2784 Revised Civil Statutes, sets forth certain purposes for w tLch the oommissionersf court for the commonschool districts In its county, andthe district school trustees for the independent school districts may levy taxes andissue bonds. It is therein provided that 

### “no tax shall belevied, collected, abrogated, dlminisheed or inoreased, andno bonds shall be issued hereunder, until such action has been authorized by a majority of the votes cast at anelection 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 andnotice of election to distinctly speaify are to t amongother 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 samewer.eraised was involved. Wequote from theHon. T. M.Trimble, page 2

opinion of the SupremeCourt 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 andall transfers of tax moneyfrom one to another of the several classes of funds therein authorized, and, as a sequence, the expenditure, for one purpose therein defined, of tax moneyraised ostensibly for another such purpose. Theimmediate 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 maybe raised from 8he people, by taxation, declaredly for those several purposes 

### or classes of purposes, respectively. But that is not all. Theultimate andpractical and obvlous design andpurpose 

### aa legal effect Is to inhibit excessive expenditures for any such purpose or class of purposes. Bynecessary implication said provisions of section 9of article 

### a were designed, not merely to limit the tax rate for certain therein designated purposes, but to require that any and all moneyraised by taxation for any such purpose shall be applied, faithfully, to that particular purpose, as’needed. therefor, andnot to any other purpose or use whatsoever. Those constitutional provisions control, not only the raising, but also the application, 

### OPall such funds; and such Is the legal effect of articles 2242 and7357, supra, whenproperly construed and applied.” Thereasoning of the SupremeCourt 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 andequipping a school building andto purchase a school site

. The electorate authorized the sameunder 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 HighwayFund, 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 wethink it hadthe 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 adeclaration of policy and a direction to the state treasurer that the fund was not to be invaded for purposes other than those namedin the article.” Theproceeds of the bonds which you mention cannot be invaded for anypurpose except the purpose for which such bonds were voted. Your first question is answered in the negative. Thediversion of this moneyfrom the stated purpose being quite plainly forbidden, wethink it is to be assumed that the authorities having charge of this moneywill not use the samefor anyprohibited purpose, andwe, therefore, donot believe that it is necessary to anew.eryour second question. Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS By/s/ Glenn B. Lewis Glenn R.~Lewis, Assistant APPROVED /s/ Gerald C. Mann ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS APPROVED:

OPINIONCOMMITTEE BY: CEK,CHAIRMAN GRL:N:wb