AURTIN aa. TWAB 

April 20, 3953 

HOna Fred C. Brigman, Jr. Opinion No. S-31 

County Attorney 

Uvalde County Ret Legality of the county at- 

.Uvalde, Texas torney accepting private 

employment to maintain an 

injunction action adverse 

to the collection of oertafn taxes by an lndependDear Sir! ent &ohool .dlstrlot e 

In substance you have. aeked thie office for its 

opinion on tihe following question: 

May a county attorney represent a prlv&e clfent in a tauft to e&loin an fndepen- r 

~~tti;;ho&~dietfict from collection of a 0 

There f8 a etriot limitation on the unofficial 

enzploynent of a oounty attorney fnr&ticle 32 of the Code 

of CrfmInal Procedure of ‘l!exa~~ which protides: 

“Dlstrlct and county attorney6 ahall 

not bye of counsel adversely to the State in 

ar\.y 0866~ in any court, nor shall they, after 

timy cease to be euoh officers, be of course1 

efmmely to the State in any oaae in which 

they have been counsel for the State.” 

zntbeoarreof ove 

351, 40 S.W.2d 20, 26 (1 

v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 

l), the Supreme Court said: 

“School tlfstrfate are looal public 

oorporatfons of the same general charaoter 

a8 municipal corporatioshe. 0 . They are 

defined ae quasf-municipal corporations, 

and derive their powers by delegation fFom 

the state. They are state agencies, erected 

and employed for the purpose of adminfstering the etate ‘8 syetem of publio schools.” 
Hon. Fred C. Brlgman, Jr., page 2 (S-31) 

In the case of Treadawav v- Whitney 13.D.. 205 

S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Clv.App. 13m In d&iding that plalntlff 

could not hold the school district liable for the negllgence of ite agent school bus driver, the court aaid: 

“Just because the services rendered in 

this respect, are performed withfn the limits 

of the city does not make such functions 

loaal in nature but their effeot and lmportance are statewide and are performed for 

the benefit of 811 the people., There are 

many respects in which a city can act In a 

proprietary capacity, but ft Is hard to 

imagine how a school district could act fn 

imch a Capac.ttY, the purpose for which it 1s 

created being purely 

& 

overnmentali and when 

casrylng out the func ions for which It was 

thus created ff could aat only 89 anagent 

of the state. 9 *” 

The court in th@ case of SoNthweatern Broadgo* v. 051 &enter &oadca%tlng C0.x, ’ 0 S.W.sd 

.Clv,App, 1947, wror ref. N.RsE.r say%: 

“An Independent school district is a 

quasi-municipal corporatIoni Under the law 

it 9,s entrusted with t&e duty of managing 

the schools.to~ the e&ent of the power 

delegated, ~‘b:t; has be@% said that the publla school 8y%t%hr A% a part of the State 

&wernment e pqt&& Maws, 120 Tex. 383, 

40 S.W.2d 31. 

ArtSole 7343, Vernon’s Clvll Statutea; provides 

in port: 

I, * Inrle~pendent school dfstrlct.0 may 

oollecii ihefr delfnqu#??t tax&s a% above 

provided for eftfoe &ad town@. 9 q T%e 

school board.may, whea the delinquent tax 

lists and recoz”da ape . roperly prepared and 

ready for suit% to be r iled, instruct the 

aounty attorney to file said suit+. If the 

school board fn8truots the CoU?dy at%Orney 

to file safd suite and he fails or refuse8 

to do BQ within sfxty day6 the school board 

..* 
Ran. Pred C. Brlgman, Jr o5 page 3 (S-31) 

may employ some other attorney of the 

county to file suft. The county attorney, 

,or other attorney, filing tax suits for 

independent school districts, shall be enCltled to the same fees as provided by law 

in suits for State and county taxes, = =” 

It is the oplnlon of this office that the 

collection of a tax levfed by an independe~nt school district. is an act of a State agency, and therefore the 

act of the State, and thus I.f the co~unty attorney should 

be employed by private clients to enjoin the collection 

.of such ttax he would be “of counsel advers:e,ly to the 

Statm” in contravention of Art;l,c’l’e 35Z2, V.C iG ,P. 

The collection of a tax levIed b; an, 

Independent school Ol,str;&ct ,xs en act of 

the St.te. Ar’t:i$Le 32, ,V.C .,C i P - , proh$b$ts 

a c~~wmty attoxzgy being emp&oyed as counsel 

a&versely t,0 the State. ‘Therefore, a 

COutlty attorney may not be employed as 

counsel for a private client to enjoin the 

aol~ectfon of a tax levied by an independent 

schg~l district. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVRD: 

J. C. Davis, Jr.’ 

County ilffairs DivUion 

JOHN B&J SREPPERD 

Attorney General 

Willis E, Gresham 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trottf 

First Assistant 

Aaslietant 

John Den Shepperd 

Attorney General