Honorable B. V. Rayford 

Co-nty Auditor 

Rusk CourQ 

Senderson, Texas 

Dear Sir: opinion x&Y. e=mx 

Be: (1) Whether school district may 

issue warraats payable over a 

term of several years. 

(2) Vihether taxes for fiscal year 

leginning Septembsr1,194l,but 

collected in August, 194l, are 

for scholastic year 1940-1941. 

Ws have received your letter of recent date which we ~quote ia _oart 

as follows: 

"I desire an opirion from you as to imo queations pertaining to the public schools, with chic! 

we are confronted in t'~iS county. A large percehtage of the scholastics of Rusk County ars transy::- 

ed to schools by buses which are owed & the so! ools. 

Several of the school dfstriots, lacking the funi3 to 

pay for buses in cash, have bought them on credit, 

paying part of the ~chase price in cash and executing warrants of the school district, payable over a 

tens of several years, for the balance. The first 

question to rbich I desire an answer is this; Do 

such notes or contracts for school buses cons%tute 

.valid obligations, enforceable against the school 

districts inourring subh obligations?" 
Honorable R. V. Ileyford, Rage 2 (O-4001) 

I . . . Thin limitation upon the power of the 

trustsea in Wing the ccntmct ndth teachen netsr~arily 1bit.a the payment of tha debts that might ' 

be contracted to the amount of the hurd nhich belonged to the diatrJ.ct for that year, and rrsg debt aoatracted greater than that wculdb a Violation of the 

lar, md constitute ac 018&e againat the diatrict.e 

The twae principle haa been extended md applied not cnly to 

tee&em1 contracta but alaa to other obligrticna, such asthe puraluas 

of equipnent, and penaanent improcments to the sohccl prcperty. 

Ycu oited in ycur letter the case of Tsmplauwi Ccrnncn Sohcol 

District v. Bcyd B. Read Canparry, 101 S.H. (2d) 352. In this care two 

rarrentr were issued in payment of septic toilets. These wem renewal 

nfMts, and were dated February 22, 1933, due February 22, 19'54, and 

April 1, 1934. Them was no showing that the district had any available 

funds on hand for the year for nhioh the purahaae was made, and the 

court in holding that reccrery oculd not be bd CQ raid warrants had the 

folloring tc anyc 

.%d.le the language used 5x1 said statute refera 

apcifically b a deficiency created inthe employment 

of teachers, it hea been held th8t it applis~ with 

equal foros tc debts ircurred in the purchase of equipment. Inthi8 oonwotion, the Wu-t of Civil Appeals 

in Stephenson V. l&&on Seating Co., 26 Tex. Cit. App. 

16, 62 S.H. 128, 129, in referring to the holding of 

the Supreme Court in %rlier V. Peacock, supre, said: 

"1 It ir held that a~warrant for a teaoher'r salary in.exoesr of the sun apportioned to the dirtrict 

for the yeer'camot be made a charge upon the fund of 

4 mbaequeiit psar. Article 3959 (new Article 2749) was 

ocnatrued as @ limitation upon the power of the trustees 

to contract ap debt which would cause a deficiency in 

the ~ohocl fund of the dirtPi&. Uhile the artiole qplies alcne to oontracts for teachers' klaries, w 

think the construction plaoed upon it~by the supreme 

court applies with equal force 5, the artiolea oontmlling the purchse of sohocl.furriture.l 

-', .3 

"The Supreme Court refused a writ of error in that 

case. This seems to be the logical sonstrudion to be 

placed on the statute; for its purpose, at least in part, 

is to avoid a dissipation in advance ofthe funds to be 

appropriated for the suppo&-t of t:-.e sc?~ol during subsequent years ezd thus render more cerzain the maintenance 

of a pxzblic free sc:lool in each ,+strict for at least 
Hon. R. V. Reyford, Page 3 (O-4001) 

six months in each year, es called for is article 7, 

3 3, of the Constitution; and, if in keeping with 

that purpose 6 defioienay debt oannot be creeted in 

the employment of e teacher, the one ixIispenaab.le 

essential of a school, it reasonebly follows thet 

such e deficiency cannot lawfully be created in the 

puroheao of equipsent. See in this oonnedion 37 

Tax. Jur. 972; ??ermn V. Sager Independent School 

Dirt., 116 Tex. 163, 266 S.W. 159.' 

The s-e doctrine has been applied to independent Echo01 distriutr. First Bet. Bank of Athena V. Murchison Independent School Dist., 

114 S.W. (2d) 382; 'Bustees of Crosby Independent School Dist. V. Uest 

Disinfecting Co., 121 S.iV. (2d) 661. In the l4urchison cese, the suit 

ma* upon warrants maturing one, tm and three -years after date, bearing 

six per cent interest, payable out of the localmairrtenance fund for 

furniture or noney advanced to purchase furaitum. The following as 

stated bythe court: 

sEor ware there, for partiaular years over and 

above the msounta necessary to conduct the school any 

available finds out of which these debts could bs paid." 

'Ws quota from the opinion of the hunission of Appeals in the 

case of Harlingen Independent School Dist. V. C. R. Page de Bra., 48 S.U. 

(2d) 983: 

Vrcm the ebow it is evident that the powers of 

the school board to *spend the funds of ths district 

ere et all times li,ited to en available Pond, and to 

;,he particular thing prescribed by the statute. The 

board never has any authority to expend funds that ere 

not l oaileble.' 

Rs see no reason to differentiate the announced doctrine es to 

the Durchase of school buses, end m, think that the language employed in 

the oited cases is amply broad to co'rer such purcheses. It follma, 

therefore, that the larranta given in payment of the buses are invalid. 

We quote hrther from your letter: 

"The fiscal year for. schools r-8 from the first 

of September of me year to the first of the same 

month of the next"y6s.r. Several cf the larger school 

districts in Rusk County are in ths oil field. In order to get the tm~ ?er cent. discous: cffexd by the 

taxing authorities for payment:of advalor taxss for 

the year 1941, many taxlxysrs have paii +eir taxes in 

full in &+tlst, my infomstLon being i?.st approdimately 
_,- . 

. 

Hon. B.V. Rayford, Page 4 (o-4001) 

ninety perxmt, o f the 1941 taxes ware psid in 

that month. The second question I suhuit to you 

is this: Ib such taxes which are oolleated in 

August, 1941, becme a part of the sohool funds 

for the scholastio year 1940-1941, making the 

same available for the payment of school obligations incurred during that year, or do such taxes 

constitute a fund forthe operatim of the schoola 

for the scholastio year 1941-19421 

'If your ansner to the last question is&at 

auohtaxes xay be applied to payment of obligations 

- inaurred for the year 1940-1941, then please answer 

this further question: Could such taxes so oollrcted in August, 1941, be lawfully applied to the peyment of a warrant issued during 1940 for part of the 

purchase price of a. hts purchased at the tjme which 

such warrant uas issued?" 

He assume that the allow&se of a discount nas made under 

the pr&isioa of Wicle 7255b, Verncsa's Auaotated Civil Statutes, 

rhi& authorizes a discount on ad valoremtaxss under the terms sst 

out in the statilte. 

Regardless of the fad that the taxes nere collected before 

kpmaber 1, 1941, which marked the ~beginirg of the aer fiscal year 

.X341-1942, they mere assessed for that fiscal year, and, therefore, 

Lwastitute a fmd for the operation of the schools duriag that year, 

It follons,in vie* af our sasmr to your first questior?, that such 

;u moneys zay not js used for the payment of obligations incurred 

during the fiscal gear 1940-1941. 

Cur answer to your second question renders unnecessary sn 

anmer to your third question. 

Verptrulyyours 

ATTOEEY GEERR OP lZX4.3 

APPRO7ED OCT 2, 1941 

s/ Gromr Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANi” 

ATTORSY GE:XXL. 

W” -. 

s/ Glenn R. Lewis 

Glenn R. bris 

Assietmt 

BY 

s/George l?. Sparks 

Georgs K. Sparks