Hon. John Stapleton 

County Attorney 

Floyd county 

Floydada, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion NO. 0-4181 

Re: Whether independent school 

district may pledge the anticipated state and county available 

funds for the current year as 

security for money borrowed to 

pay salaries of teachers and superintendents for the current 

year. 

We.have received your letter of October 31, 1941, 

in which~you ask the opinion of this department on the above 

captioned question. 

. 

Article 2749, Revised Civil Statutes, reads in part 

as follows: 

” provided, that the trustees in making 

contra&G ;ith teachers, shall not creaie a defi- 

~:ciencydebt against the district." 

Article 2827, Revised Civil Statutes, provides, in 

part as follows: 

"The public free school funds shall not be 

expended except for the following purposes: 

"1. The State and county available funds .~ 

shall be used exclusively for the paymentof 

teachers' and superintendents* salaries, fees 

for taking the scholastic census 

on money borrowed on short time i 

and interest 

opay salaries 

of teachers and superintendents, ~when these salaries become due before the school funds for the 

current year become available; provided that no 

loans for the purpose of payment of teachers shall 

be paid outof funds other than those of the then 

current year.l 

The Supreme Court of Texas in the case of-collier 

v. Peacock, 5% S.W. 102.5,.had the following to says 
Hon. John Stapleton, page 2 

"But the trustees were not authorized to 

contract any &e'Dt dkiidn -wotiti t-du3z3 -airt+EWwnq 

in the school fund of the district. In other 

words, they could not contract debts in the employment of teachers to an amount greater than 

the school fund apportioned to that district for 

that scholastic year. This limitation upon the 

power of the trustees in making the contract with 

the teachers necessarily limits the payment of 

the debts that might be contracted to the amount. 

of the fund which belonged to the district for 

that year, and any debt contracted greater than 

that would be a violation of the law and constitute no claim against the distric i .w See also 

First Nat. Bank of Athens v. Mxchison Independent School District, 114 S.W. (2d) 382; Trustees 

of Crosby Independent School District v. West 

Disinfecting Co., 121 S.W. (2d) 661. 

Although you do not so state, we assume that the 

loan contemplated is a short time loan and is@t~ for an 

amount greater than that which the district reasnnably anticipates for the current year. 

In view of the foregoing authorities, you are respectfully advised that the trustees of an independent school 

district may borrow money for the payment of teachers' and 

superintendents' salaries for the current year and pledge the 

anticipated state and county available school funds as security. However, any debt created in excess of the amount which 

the district reasonably anticipates that it will obtain for 

the current year would be invalid. 

APPROVED DRC 3~ 1941 

/s/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNRY 

GENERgL 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

By /s/ George W. Sparks 

George W. Sparks, Assistant 

APPROVRD: OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY: BWR, CHAIRMAR 

GWS:ap:wb