OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

31IRM.D 0. MANN 

.“an .=I- Maroh 25, 1939 

f&T. ,L. L. ~mompsan 

Oounty Auditor 

Taylor County 

Abllene, Texas 

Daar 9irt 
Ur. L. R. Thompson, G.roh 3, 1939, Page 2 

proved by the Commissioners* COW%, the budget, 

as approved by the Court shall be filed with 

the Clerk of the County Court, and taxes levied 

only in aocordanoe therewith, and no expenditure 

of the'fnnds of the aounty shall theresfter be 

made eroept in striot oomplianoe tith the budget 

as adopted by the Court. braept that emergenoy 

expenditures, in ease or grave pub110 neoe68ity, 

to meet unusual and unfore8esn oondltions whioh 

could not, by reasonably diligent thought and 

attention, hsve.bsen InolPasd in the .orlglnal 

*& na debt for any purpOi4 shall eve 

be lnotunvd In any stannor tay say oltg or ahtnty 

tanlosa p~~ision im redo, at the t&e ar oreatit@ the same, for levyin& and aolleoting.@ 
"u;r . i. 3. Thompson, Xarah 3, 1939, Page 3 

a wfflclent tax to pay t.3e Interest thereon 

and provide at least two per oent (i$) a4 4 

slrlkln~ fund." 

The word *debt* a8 ueed in the Constitutloc 

hiae beein defined by the YupromemQurt a8 neanlng: 

y:,ny peouniary obligation imposed by ooutraot, eroept suah as were, at the date of the 

contcaot, tithin the lawful end raeaonable oonteqrlation of the partIe8, to be satisiiod out 

of the surrant rwottuea r0r tbo y-r, or out 

of am ~fund then ulthla.the #ti&lato oontrol 

of the oorpor8tion.* yams T. city or utt~~o, 

89 Tar. 83, 53 sll 388; bnuala, v. Stran&h,. 

196'SR 84#1 Stammmn v. 8lakr, 68 8U (&WI) 

97s. 11s SW (2nd) sm. '2 

~:~y.. 

Vfhera the requlrmnt8 of the 8tatut8 

have bemn ooaplled *iOh, it 8aem8 to us W 

easily oould be datermlned at any time whether 

the rum'oi alains r8prewating ordinary axpentsea of the ooonty amountad tm aa muoh as 

It rsauonably ooulb ?m l xpaatsd ths ourrant 
k&r. 1. 2. Thoqmon, Sarah 3, 1939, Page 4 * 

revenues of the county would mount to. 

":-can it ~6s fount the$ did, it seems to uz1 

it xicht have well been aaid that such ordine;p erpnnsea of the aounty 88 *rem thersuttemartis incurred were wltbln the prohiM.- 

tion Of secticn 7 of ertfole 11 of the Conetltution.” 

It will be noted tbat the above-quoted definltion c::;' "debt* , on well ae the atetement of the TOXIUkaae Court, appeared in opinlono prior to the eaaetaeat 

or th8 Buagot stotuts. We ouuwt interpret the."emr~ 

olauaem of that statute to oontrnveae the ooastitatimal 

B8MdO. 

It 8hou.M ba kmrno in rind that the lb ia wall 

eettled that ooastltutloaal fund6 .M the ooaaty aanaot 

b0 tpinero,rr0d rr4m on0 rtlnd t0 wxt.mr, aor M; tax m080y 

rd80u-ofktoxibibi~ r0r -0 .pwpo~, b0 8xpd0d for uiahOrr 

.&e Oarroll V8. WilliaJu, 109 Tex. 185, toe SW $04. QBL : 

the &her band rtatatory far+ may bo traaarerrmd I&t. 

1w; P. c. ~8.I ml 0 apparent purpo8e of SootIon 8h of. 

thm Badgot.&w abow-quoted..ir,to erideaoo the .$atoatioa 

or the Lmgi8l&aro iot to 's.the rlgbtoofa~amrie8ioaer8' Uourt in treaatorrih6 stmt&~,-faa&8 fra 

one mad to another. 

You are, thererom, advia& lt 1s our opinl6m 

the souaty au&et aennot be momled la an aaoun~axosadlng the l otlolpated rev0nu.m in may pertioula~r$~4 80 

aa to oreate a dobt rlthta the meaalrg of seotf6a'T 

Art. 11 of the Conetltutioa, ualem 0 tax bo tot&b 

pay mid debt; aad this fe true ru$a@le8a of the @x18- 

toaoe or ubl%o aeoemlty and unferikmkn oonditionai 

We do Id the budget may be man4.d by tho Oommlaaloal a * Co ur tí in a o o a r & a uor * itb the p r mi8io a o or Bo o tlo n 

l2 (Vemaoa*a, Art. 669a-11) or tlm unfrorn Bud@t Aot 

lr a debt a8 above derineb 18 not oreatcrb, upon a fir& 

ing by the Court, mxpporte4 by the faot8, that ~@a emergenoy exiete in auoord wtth 'the provision of.,salQ 8eofl.m. 

Vary truly poure 

WRRALOFT