Honorable Ii. Pat Edwards 

Civil District Attorney 

Hall of Recotids 

Dallas, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion Number O-3774 

Re: Proceeds of bond 

funds of Common 

School Districts. 

We acknowledge receipt of your opinion request of recent date and quote from your letter as 

followe? 

"The Reinhardt Common School District 

No. 16 of Dallas County, In the Fall of 1940, 

by an election duly called and held, voted 

favorably for the issuance of $35,000.00 

Schoolhouse Bonds 'for the purpose of provlding funds to be expended in payment of accounts 

legally contracted in constructing and equlpping a'public free school building of materials other than wood; installing necessary 

sanitary Improvements and purchasing additional school grounds in and for said district', 

In the ptieparation of preliminary orders and 

for the 'purpose of presenting the bond traneeript to your department for approval, the 

School Board hired and paid W. P. Dumaa, an 

attorney-at-law of Dallas County, Texas, the 

sum of $150.00 attorney's fee, and also paid 

the sum of $74.50 for the printing of the 

bonds. When the bonds were offered for sale 

on March 15, 1941, a joint bid was received 

from Jam&s, Stayart & Davis, Inc. and Beckett, 

G,llbert & Co., Inc., a true and correct copy 

of which is herewith enclosed, and which bid 

you will observe wa8 contingebtupon the 'simultaneous acceptance by the Board of Truet;ees of the District of the attached contraot. 
Honorable R. Pat Edwards, page 2 (O-3774) 

By paragraph 2 of the attached contract it 

appears these alleged bond buyers agreed that 

at thelr expense and with the assistance of 

the trustees @to secure and compile all necessary data and Information and to prepare 

all necessary forms and to do all things necessary to a full and fair presentation of 

application for the sale of said bonds by 

the District to the State Board of Education 

for InvCstment In the Permanent School Fund’, 

and In consideration of such servicers it appears from the contract that the Board of 

Trustees agreed to pay the purported buyers 

the sum of $500.00 caah. And, It will be 

observed further that this contract provided 

that this sum Ishould be paid regardless of 

whether the bonds were delivered to these 

purported buyers or to the State Board of 

Education. 

“As stated above, the Board of Trustees 

had already contracted to pay Mr. Dumae~ the 

8um of $150.00 attorney’s fee for preparing 

the bond transcript and presenting the same 

to your department, and the sum of $74.50’ 

expense of printing the bonda, and a6 ehown 

by the attached letter from James, Stayart 

& Davla, Inc. on March 15ti-1, 1941, when this 

contract in question was entered into, the 

School District had already prepared to a 

great extent the Application Form for presenting the bonds to the State Board of Education, so that it was necessary to do very 

little to complete this minor part of the 

proposed services. Therefore, aa explained 

by these buyera, their services consisted 

in this reepect ‘almost solely of the prlmary part of the within described full and 

fair presentation of Application’. This is8ue of bond8 was duly purchased by the State 

Board of Education for the price of par and 

accrued Interest plus a premium of $519.99. 

The County Superintendent of Schools was not 

advised of this contract, and subsequent to 

the receipt of the purchaee price of the 

bonds from the State Board of Education, 

he joined in the payment of the attorney’s 

fee and cost of printing the bonds, but 
Honorable H. Pat Edwards, page 3 (O-3774) 

when presented wfth a request to join with 

the,Trustees in the payment of $500.00 to 

these alleged bidders for their so-called ,, 

servibes,~ the effect of which was to require' 

V;he State Board of Education to bid above 

par and accrued Interest for the bonds, refused to authorize such payment and addressed 

an Inquiry to this office as to the legality 

of~paylng from the proceeds of thfs bond is- 

<sue, $500.00 for alleged servfces under this 

contract hereto attached. The School Board 

has no funds other than the proceeds of this 

bond issue from which payment may be made. 

* * + * * * 

"Can the trustees of a common school 

district pay out of the bond account, which 

had been legally voted by the people of this 

district, a fee to proposed bond buyers for 

compiling data and information on required 

forms and such other things as might be necessary for a full and fafr presentatfon of 

fLppllcatlon for the sale of such bonds to 

the State Board of Educatfon for Investment 

l.n the Permanent School Fund?" 

This department has heretofore held that all 

absolutely necessary expenses inourred in the issuance 

and sale of bonds may be pafd out of the proceeds received from the sale of the bonds* Opfnfon Number 

O-131:!* .The determination of necessary expense must 

be based upon facts peculiar to each issue, the knowledge of which obvfously fs within the province of the 

persons charged by law with administering the affairs 

of the issuing agency. It will be observed that the 

law has conferred upon the County Superintendent the 

duty of approving expendetupes of common school dlstr9cts (Article 2693, Revised Cfv%l Statutes) and we 

gather from the facts stated in the instant matter 

that such offfcer has exercised his authority by declining to approve the payment in questfon. It must, 

therefore, be presumed by this department that he has 

possecsfon of the facts, and his judgment thereon cannot be questioned fn the absence of a showfng that 

he is arbitrarily abusing the authorfty vested in him. 
h -? 

Honorable H. Pat Edwards, page 4 (O-3774) 

We, therefore, hold that under the law his 

action is concluelve on us. 

mmnm Auc3 27, 1941 Very truly yours 

/e/ Grover Sellers ATTORNEY GEIVRRAL OF TEXAS 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

COB-s:lm 

By /6/ Claud 0. Boothman 

Claud 0. Boothman 

Assistant 

. . I