**OFFICE OF**  **THE AITORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** 

### AUSTIN

Mnorablk **Wardlow** Lane Di8trIot **Attamey** 

### Center,Term

mar Slrx 

### 0pIn10n so.o-e ROIWhothor or nsolldatsd

mttleb by allaeven thel3 

### rerignation and aevenmore. Rowthan, 

### 0r the aahool 

## rum or the attornays who
l**efx C.uo** **sarranto suit**  **ht agalnut**  then to **oust them**  **tram**

oo well established to require a oltation hat the preeent truetrae OSthe oonaoll091 dlrtrlot In **question** hare no cower **or** authorlty.to ratliy 

### or **approro** Illegal oontraots or 

### previour **trusteea.** Your Inquiry than Is narrowed to a **deter** alnatlon of whether 

### ornot school ttusteee Icaylegally es ploy attorney6 to defend thm in 

### a 8uIt in the nature of a quowarrant0 **brought to**  **oust** themrrom orrioe ror offiolal mlsoonduot, **80 no**  **to c** **’ onstftute**  **a oharge**  **upm school**  

### runas0r the dlstriot.**Honorable** Fardlow Lane, Tage 2

There are twowell ostabllohed principles Of lax bywhloh we

### mustbe guide'd. They are first that:

**“ A**  quasi public corporation, such ns a sohool 6Istrlot, which ows speoial. duties to the pblla, maynot enter into say contraot that Is'not expressly authorized by law or neoeasarIly implied rrom powers expressly granted." CcCorkel v. DistriOt Trustees, eto. (C.C.k.1838), 121 s. 7. (2A) 240.
**And seoond**  that:



### *Asahool district Is a quasi corporation or a public natMe, and the trustees of said district oannot lawfully expend moneybelonging thereto sxoept f.or the purposes authorized by statute." Adam '1. riles ( Corn.App.), 35 s. 8. (2d) 123. In dsoiding whether or not authority to so enploy attorneys exists the following artialea of the 2etlsed Civil Satutes of l.E25 (Vernon's Edition) must be 

### oonsldered:

"Artlole 2748. Said truetses shell bo a body polltlo and corporate In law, an4shall be knownbyan4 under the title an4 nameof dls**trlot trustees**  of dlstriot number-, an4 oounty **or** , State of Texas; andas suoh may contra-d be oontraatsa lath, sue aEd**be sued,**  plead or be Impleaded, In any court of this ltate of proper Jurisdiotion, an4mayreceive any gift, grant, donation 

### ordevise made

### ror the use of the public schools ot the dietriot. **All reports**  an4 other oifiolal papers shall be heade4 with the numberof dlstrlot andnameof county."

**. “** **Artiole Z749.**  Sal4 trustees shall have the managel;ant and control of the pub110 schools and pub110 school groun4s; an4 they shall determIne howmanyschools shall be molntained in their school **dlstriot,** an4 at rhat points they shall be looated; provided, that not more than one school for white children an4 one sahool fcr oolored children shnll be established for each sixteen square miles of territory of major fraction thereof, within **ouch** dlntriat; an4 they shall determine nhsn the schools Hhall bs openedHonorable i’;ardlow Lane, Fage 3

andwhenclosed. Theyshall have the power to employ an4 4ismIss teaahers; but In ease or blsmissal, teachers shall have the right of appeal to the oounty and State Superintendents. They shall oontraot with teachers and manageand **supervies** the sohoola), **subject** to the rules an4 regulations **or** the oounty **an4** State cuperfntendents; they shall approve all claims agalnat sohool funds ot their Ulstriot; provided, that the trustees, Inmaking contracts wlth teaohere, shall not oreats a derlclenoy debt against the dlstrlot .* *Artlole 2827. ‘,.‘l. TheState an4 county ava-llable funds shall 

### beuse4 exoluslvely for the payxant ot teachers’ and auperlntenQents~ salaries, fees for taking the scholastic census, and Interest onmoneyborrow8 on short time to pay,salarles OSteachers an4 superintendentb, whenthese salaries beoone due berorejthe school funds ror the current yoar becomearullable; provided that noloans for the purpose or payment or teachexs shall be paid out of funds other than those for the then cur

### rentyear.

“2. Looal school funds iron district taxes, tuition rees or pupils not entitled to free WItion an4 other looal sources maybe use4 ror the purposes enumerate4 for state and county runds an4 for purchasing appliances and **SUppliSS,** for the paynent of Insuranae pre’cmlums,janitors and other employee, ror buying school sites, buying, building an4 repairing and renting school houses, an4 ior other purposes necessary In the conduot ot the public eohools to be detertine by the Board or Trustees, the acoounts an4vouohera Xqr oountg dIetrIots to be approved by the aounty superintendent; provided, that vlhenthe State available sohool fund In‘any oity or dimtrlat Is aurriclent to maintain the sohools thereor in anyyear for at least eight nonthe, and leave a eurplus, suoh surplus maybe expended for the purposes mentioned herein. I

. . .* It Is quite apparent that the **Leglsleture** has given no express authority to ooneolldated dormonschool dietriot trustees to empfoy oounael to represent then;an4Eonornble Zsrdlow Lane, r4,s.e4

provido for their paymentwith sohocl funds in litigation ot anyneture, end Artiale 2827 has ciroumrrorlbed their euthorlty to spend aohool tunde. Is the power neoesaarlly laplied 

### iron porerswhich era erpr44sly grentad?

As 8tet6d in 37Tax. Jurla et pegs 9451 *Evanin the ebsaaoe or power 

### axpraeslycon**ferred, trustees**  mayemploy attorncrjs to instltuta 

### and**poeeoute** action4 

### intheirbehalf a4 uneo4asary lnoidsnt 0s thblr 

### power4to contraot, to **aue**

### and**wmage** 

### and**control** the sohool erfalra and lntereote. Likarlae they meypay such ettorneye rsaaonebla compsnsat.$on out of the speolal maintenanoo fund in the maq~agamsntend oontrol 0r the truatma.- Ansxam~l4 0r this rula is the case ot Arrlngton v.'Jonar (c. c. A.) 191 S. w. 361, on4 or many

### or it4 kind holding that sohool **trust.eee may** 4mpl6y 4n **attorney** ***to** r4prea4nt themJnlegal proo44dlng4 respecting sohool aiiairs.* Sea al40 Rarding **et** al v. R4ymondvllls Independent school Dlrtrlot~(C.C.A. 1932). 51 s. K. .(2Q) 826; Stewart T. Xowton Icdependent Sohool District (Civ. App. 1939), 134 S. WA’

.(2d) 429. Ther4preasntatlon in such iastanoeq, how

### everiaorthe4chool trusteee as 4body oorporata, 4nd 

### in noiretanoo havowefound duthorlty for tha proposition that rohool funds maybe ussd to pay attorney's rees 

### lnourredin 

### a personal **suit egainst**  **the truotees**  **ta oust**  them

### Imu **offios.**

Indaed, the rule allowing the school truetsea to employattorceya aad oompeasets them**out** or the pub110 school rood4 

### 14 limited to nettsra involving aohool aftalrs wherein the lnter4ste of the sahool er4 involved. D4nm4nv. Kebatsr, 139Cal. 462, 73 Pac. 139; hyrne v. covington 5oerd or **Eduoa** tloa, 140 Ky. 531, 131 S. 'i;. 260; Tercplin v. Fremont Diatrlot, 36Iowa 411; Cklahome City Board or Educetlon v. Thorman, 121 'Okle. 108, 247 reo. 996; Z&oKinnonv. State, 70Fla. 561, 70 So. 567, Kelksr et al v. Yalter et al (C.C.A. 1922], 241 5. ::. S24; Craves B.Hotichsne v. DiamondKill Indl rohool Cietriot **(C.C.A.** 1922), 243 '. iv. 638.

6971 Aa stated in Vol. 24 or Ruling Case Iax at page

Yha question has rrequently arlaen as to the QlVQriOtp of the nxpQndltur4 or aohool funds in counsel rees. Sroadly apsaklng a sohool distriot havlng the power to sue andbe sued mnyHOnOral: Kardlovr **L.808, pa&4** 

### 5

employ anattorney lr the 4mQloyluentI4 neoeseery for the proteotion of the QUbliOintersets 00tdtt4a to it. The power to employ inoluae4 the Fow4rto co%pepsEse$e,But the power to employ counsel exist.8 only where e publio inter8st is oonoerned whloh the board Is oharged~by law with the duty to proteot, and of oourse echo01 funds cannot bo used to pay ooeta or counsel reaa In eotlons brought osteoslbly In relation thereto, but in reality for the benefit of prltate persons. The questlon Usually arlaes end 

### ir mm aitriouit to detersins where etatutes exlat providing that 401a4legal ofiloial shall act as counsel ror the 

### board. Ii th4 **statute** requirea such officer toMappear for the dlatrlct, it oaanot crmployanotlxr 9n hi8 plaoe, ii he 1s able end rllllng to act, though it mey, ln a **proper ctse,**  employ 

### anassistant oounsel; end a statute perizlttlng tho enploya8nt of sQeoIa1 counsel uhen reoeesery 1s constitutional. These deolsions &Spendlhrgely **on** the **local 8tatut84,**  =d are i equently or little ralus a4 authorit:,

a bspond th particular jurlndiotlo~. ::hera a school distrlot 1s expressly authorized to employ counsal ror certain purposes its authority wl&l be M.&ted stxlotly to the powers granted.* In Zerrtlonv. Webster, **4UQr4,** it wu4held that ths powerof 

### theschool board to ezqloy oounsal 

### axlets only where a public interest is oonosrrmd which the board 

### Is charged by lawwith the duty to proteot, end that the school board had no authority to amploy counsel la en electloo contest to detcrmlae xho were the de jure membersor the eohool board.
In Dyrne and Readv. Boer4 or gduoatlon or the City 0r Covington, supra, the queetion was 4s to the right 0r 41x **mamb8ra**0r the board of education or Corington to uploy 

### enattorney to sue to oompel the other SIXmembers to

### meetwith the~fomr, so es to proceed with the business ber0re the board. The oourt held that an attorney could not besmployed ior suoh purpoees and said:

*The board of eduoetion is a body corporate. It is en agctncy0r ~orernczant. Its oeixolty to oontreot la olroumsorlbed. It oen oontreot only in bahalr of the oonxon school lntereeta of the olty in any event. It was not cornpotent for It to hers contracted to payths counsel lees lnourred by Ita individual n;embers In aroatter wholly amonqtber;selves. If the ease hadbeenHonortile Qrdlon Lane, rage 6

a contest between two **of** the llti(pats as to whioh via8entitled to the office of ffieizberof the.board, it would in a sense hove involved aratter affecting the schools of the city. So ?loss.the actlon ia question. **But** it affeots the uohool interests only a8an lnoldent. The aotioa was Fersonal **as** to its parties. Anycit-

‘izen and patron of the School tight as well have maintained It. **But** the test of the llablllty of the board of eduoatlon on the contract Is not whether the pukUc body was benefited by It. It Is never allowed that the state, or any of **Its** constituent **ems** of eoverncsnt , though oxpresslyz pemltted to **make** oontracts andbe sued **upon** them, cay beoome liable on Implied asorucpslt. 1,ublio oorporate bodies mat not only act in aLatter wlthin their jurisdlctlsn, but 13the mannerexpressly authotlzed .bylan, or they cannot bind the pub110 as for debt. Cotho board of education alone could contraot a debt agall?st Itself as a.$ubllo corporation.. Belther aElaorIty,of the board aoting together, or whatsoever nuu.baracting Independently and pemsonally, oauld Lo. so. Nor, In such Inatanoes, does the question of benefit or advantage derived by the public atfeot the question Of the Fubllc*e liability. It mst be reh,sc;bcred that the public In Its quality of sovereign is never liable at all as for debt, unless It expressly pcrffilts. AndwhenIt psralts such liability It **cust** contract, not only for 'We ffiatter, but only In the manner expressly authorized." (Underscoring oura) The case of %ith v. 70Fa. zuper. i‘lttsburRh 'chool l'lstrlct,

184, Is dlreotly in point. lr: that case the sohool board etipLoyed attorneys to represent thelr in an Ration instituted to restrain then from rapreaenting the sahool in certain scatters since an aot of t.heI,aglslaturo (which the defendonta alleged to be unconstltutlonal) ter- ,Einated their offlces durinq the year. Flalntiffs in the .preSent OaSeWore **thCir attOrney5**  in the F~x!v~ou~action whlohthey lost; and the present action **was**Instituted to Moover attorneysr tees. The court said:

"The holder of anoffice has an undisputed right to contest the validity of leglSlation which ousts hlni. That is personal to h11~1elf. The~1111of the pUbli0 is voiced by tho legielsture, and he whoraises the oontest. a~‘.??u;i:eS thei-;onore+le riardlow Lane, Pnea 7

burden of c5tablishing his right, andtho burden of ooeta. axwnses. etc.. are lncldent to that contest; Ziahas no

### vesied rlrbt to an offloe created by the loglslature, analndependent-

‘Iy of the legislatdve ~111, the public has uo Interoat in continuing these **p3rtioular** persons UCdirectors of thls sub-school dlatrlot.
*

. . .

“The old board of Qlreotors of the aub5obnol **dlstriot** bud **no power**  **to make** these defendants liable for profaasIonal aervlces In suoh a contest, Thedlreotors viere axarclslng powers delegated to them by Saw, andonly In the exerolse or suoh parers, aotlng exolu5lvely in their oftlola oapaoltle8 as the Immedlate representatlvea of the pub110andpurely **and** In behalf, could they b&id the public.

.

. .I (UnderscorIng ours) Yebellbve that this 15the lan 

### In ~cxas and opiniona of prcvloua adnilnI5tratIon5 of t.his departiient are In aocord with this view. See O&i’iOll dated Ootober 11, **1937, to**  **Eonorable A.**  A. b’lller, County Attorney, Newton Couaty.

**In xalker**  **et al**  v. Xalter at al, (C.C.A. 1922) 241 3. 2. 924, a cult was filed to remove certain trustees of an irdepsndcnt sohool district 

### rromoflice, plalntlff alla&g various aots of offlola mIsoonduot asd lnoompetenoy. The petition also prayed for ataxqorary In$uhotlon enjoining defendants irom spending anylnoney or funds belonging to the school dietriot to defend the **cause.** The Court of Civil Ap;.eals although reforming In part the judgment below continued the temporary Injunction to proNblt the paying **out of**  sohool funds for anyoi the erpen5e5 of lItlgatIon.

For a case slmllar In principle restraining commomschool dlstrlot trusteee from Spending publie funds which expenditures would beaaflt the trustees personally, 8ee Barton Y. Vlokery, (C. C. **A.** 1916) 189

.‘

. ‘::. 1103.

The case of Craves (GW>utohensv. Clanond El11 Ind. !?chool Clstrlot, (C. C. **A.** 1922) 243 ‘:. 

### 7'. 630, lnvalved the appl.IoatIon of prlnolplea **of** law **elnllar to**  **those** Involved In the Lnatant ease. In that **cane** the **t~rusteea of**  the independent sohool dlstrlot hadentered Into a contract with a firm of attorneys for the purpose of having then defeat oartaln bllla pending In the &!glaleture. ThecourtHonorable "ardlow Lane, page 8

held that the coqtraot **was ultra**  vires, opposed to pub110 ~~~lloyand void. In the course of the opinion Chief Justice Conner **stated** the rule as follows:

While It is doubtless **true** that there is p&er in a board of trusteea of an independent. sohool dlat+zt to mploy counsel-and pay out or the publia funds or, the dletrlot a reasonable ree in oases where the interests of the diatriO,t require aaaertlOn or derenae 113the t oour 80 orltp, after oaretul search, either expressed or implied in **the statutes**  or this ataie to.anploy counsel expend tte pub110funds o'r'the diatrlot ln theand attempt to aeoure or dereat leglalatlon." (Underaoorlng **ours)** Consequently, it is the opinion of tkls department andYOUar8 respeatrully adrlaed that sohool funds or the oonsolldatqd commonschool district in question my not be used to pay attorney's tees incurred by certain neffibers ot a **pretiou8** board of trustees in the defense ot a **quo** mrranta suit brought agatnat them.

**Yours rsry**  **truly** ATTORN **CEXCRAL Or**  **TFmS**

JDS:LE