Honorable John F. May 

County Attorney 

Karnes County 

Karnes City, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion Aumber O-1797 

Re: Authority of Commissioners' 

Court to refund road bonds 

to mature in lesser t'ime than 

that of the underlying bonds. 

We are in receipt of your letter of December 29, requesting our opinion as to the legality of the procedure pro8 

osed in the matter of refunding certain bonds OS Road District 

3 of Karney County. The facts are briefly as follows: 

"Road District #3 of Karnes County, Texas, 

voted-a bond issue of $32,000, bearing interest 

at a rate of not more than 4$, due and payable 

serially, one bond of $1,000 due each year for 

twenty-six years, and one bond of $1500 due each 

year for the following four years, vlth option 

of prior redemption after five years from the 

date of such bonds. A bond buyer has proposed 

to purchase the bonds as they were voted and then 

have the Commisslonerst Court to refund the bond 

issue so as to make them due and payable serially 

Fn twenty years and make the payments due each 

year about equal, 

payment." 

with ten year option as to 

Your question is: 

"Can this be legally done withaut another 

election?" 
Honorable John F. May, page #2 (O-1797) 

After a careful reading of the statute governing 

the issuance of refunding bonds, we must advise that we 

have failed to find any provision within the statute requiring the submlsslon of the proposltlon of the issuance 

of refunding bonds to the electorate. We, therefore, must 

answer your question in the affirmative. 

By giving an affirmative answer we do not intend that 

this opinion shall be construed as approving the procedure 

outlined in your letter. Article 752x of the Revised Civil 

Statutes of 1925 is the law appertaining to the refunding of 

road bonds, and reads as follows: 

"That the commissioners' court of the several 

counties in Texas shall have authority to refund 

any road bonds that have been issued or that may 

hereafter be issued by authority of any law enacted pursuant to Section 52 of Article 3 of the 

Constitution of Texas, when such road bonds have 

been issued for and on behalf of a political subdivision or defined district or consolidated district in such aounty. Such refunding bonds shall 

be made to mature serially over a period not exceeding forty (40) years from their date, as x 

& determined & the commissioners court,-@ 

they stax be made tobear Interest atthesame -- or 

lower ratethant.G original bondswhm are being 

refunded. - 'PhecGiiiiissioners' court7iE71have 

provide for the levy of ad valorem taxes on all 

taxable property In the political subdivision or 

defined district, or consolidated district, as the 

case may be, sufficient to pay the current Interest 

on said refunding bonds and to pay the principal 

as it matures." 

It will be noted Prom a careful reading of this 

statute that a great deal of latitude Is vested in the commissioners' court in the matter of determining the feasibility of 

refundFng road bonds. We have underscored certain language 
Honorable John F. May, page #3 (o-1797) 

used .in this statute which we think'~indlcatlve .of the legislative intention to make the advisability of a refunding a 

matter of dlscretlon. we must conclude, therefore, that it 

is legally within the power OS the commis'sloners' court .to 

refund any bonds that have been issued where such,'d'ourt 

deems it advisable and to the best interest of the'district 

that such refunding be done. 

The courts of this State, have often announced the 

principle that where a statute gives authority to commissioners' courts; it will be reasonably construed in orderto 

effect its purpose. See Sheffield vs. Sheppard,'39 S. W,.' 

(26) 1111, Wallace vs. Commlssloners~ Court OS Madlson County, 

281 s. w. 593. Jurisdiction has been conferred upon the 

county commissioners' court to effectuate refundings for the 

various defined road districts situated in~its county; and 

having acquired that jurFsdiction they may, except as restrained bylawi exercise such~powers according to their 

discretion., See the case of Raberbekken vs. Coryell County, 

247 S. W. 1086. In the case of Cameron vs. Earnest, the 

Court of Cltil Appeals stated that: 

"In the absence OS Sraud, no court has right 

to set aside decision of commissioners' court on 

matters within Its, jurisdiction." 

685, error dismissed. 

34 S. W. (2d) 

And again the Court OS Civil A peals held in the 

case of King vs. Falls County, 42 S. W. 72d) 481, that: 

“A dlstrlct court cannot revFew dlscretlon of 

commissioners~ court unless it appears there has 

been clear abuse of court's discretion." 

It will be seen from the above quoted decisions that 

where a matter comes wLthin the discretlonarg powers of a 

commisslonersl court much latitude of action is permitted 

said court. And since we have heretofore determined that 

Article 752x invests the commissioners' court wlth a certain 

amount of discretion In the matter of determining the necessity for a refunding, we must indulge the presumption that 
Honorable 3ohn F. May, page #4 (o-1797) 

the cornmIssioners court is actkg within Its authority ia 

proposing to refund the road bonds of District #3 to mature 

in twenty fears Instead of the thirty-year period authorized 

In the election. In the absence of an abuse of this discretion the presumption must be in favor of the legality of 

the traasactioa. 

You are, therefore, advised that unless it appears 

that the c'osnsissioners~ court is abusing that discretion, the 

proposed refunding cannot be said to be Illegal. This would 

be true even though a greater burden was placed upon the taxpayer thaia was anticipated by the electorate at the time the 

bonds were authorized. 

You are further expressly adtisdd that the commissioners' court's authority to refund any Issue of bonds ari.ses 

only after the underlying bonds have been issued, and, under 

the law, bonds are not considered to have been Issued until 

they have been sold and the proceeds thereof placed In the 

cujtody of the County Treasurer. Hence, it must follow that 

the agreement%o refund bonds prior to their issuance is not 

only premature but is unauthorized. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORIiRYGFZRRAL OFTRXAS 

CEC-s:mjs 

APPROVED JAR 27, 1940 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORIiZYWFBRALOFTRXAS 

APPRWED OPIHION COMMITl!RB 

By ,&fJgf&cPmwJ 

BY /s/ Clarence E. Crow0 

Clarence E. Crowe 

Assistant