HonorableR. L. Crosier

CountyAttorney Johnson County Clehrne, Texas

Dear Sir: Opinion Iiunber O-3S56 RE: Necessity of submittira refunding bonds of common school districta to the Attorr-63

General for spprove1 prior to their issuance.

Ye have your letter requesting our opinion on the follo~I.n,g

question:

"Is it necessary for the Attorney General to anprove ref%.ndlng bond& of Hines Common Sohool D?strlatRo. SO?-

Article 27So of~Vernon*sAnnotated Clvll Statutes r6qd8, in part, as follows:

*Where bonds have **been** legally issued or muy be hereafter issued by **any** * * * c'ommon rohool dlstriot * * * new bonds bearing the seme or a lessrate of interestmay'when ordered by the govarnlnq board thereof be issued either a6 term bonds or as seriel bonds,maturing in either ceae within forty years from the Uate of the issue, an& may **be** made optional an any Interest peyment date

as the governing board.shall direat; provided further that matured interest coupons of such dietrlat may be refunded in lrke manneri and provided furM16r that no election shell be necessary to authorize the !.ssuance

of suah new bonds; and provided further that the State Treasurer shall uy,onorder of th6 State Board of Education exohange bonds not matureii held by him for the permaaent sohool fund for the new refunding bonds issuad by the same in=pora- %ion under the provIsIons of this subdlvlsion in case the rate of interest on the new bonds i8 not less than the rute of interest on the bonds for which they are oxchanged3*.

The above quote& article ia th6 suooesaor to Artiale 2789;whioh was anonded in 1935 by~theForty-fourthLcgislatar6,page 760, Chapter 331. The artiole likewisewa8 emendedby theActs of 1933, Forty~third,Lsgialature,page 62, 6h. ',',;o;he

prior Act being a Dart o? the aodiftoatlonof 1925, to which said arti+6lwaa known as Artlole 2864 of the1911Rsvised Civil Statutes: The first law authorizlng,.ths

issuanceof refunding bonds by a schooldistriot 0r any kind 1s found in theAats of l?S5, page 263. Under the.Aots of 1905 iudeperdent school dbtTiCtS were authorized to iselta

new or refunding bonds *in co?rPornity with this Act?. Thla Aot,required all original issues of bonds, both of co~&~ll ~sohooldistricts and independentachooldistricts, to be approved by the AttorneyGeneral before samewere issuedand sold. It was also necessary that new or refuhdlw bohdn ISsued by an independea school district should first be epprwed by theAttorney General. ITo authority was oonferred upon common sohooi disiriots to issue refunding bonds,

Under the revision of 1911 this section of theAot of 1905 was given the number 2864,which article authorized in&- pendent school,distrlctsto issue refund1n.g bonds ninoonformity with this chapter*. The reference to "'thischapter" ins the revision had reference to Chapter 13, Title 49, under whioh was found the authority for the issuenoe of bonds by school districts. both independentand common, and both of whioh were required to,uubmit the bondproceedings to the AttornegGeneral for approval prior to their issuanceen8 sale. Under the revlsion of 1925 this sta?;ute wea g:.va;l the new designation - Articie 2789 - and authorized indc-.pendent sohool diatricta to issue new or~refnndingbonds "in oonformfity with this subdivisionVt-. Artiole 2789, as amended in 1933 and 1935,


### useaexactly the samewording as therevised artiole of 1925. It wea not until the amendment of 1933 that common schocl districtswere authorized to issue new er refunding bonds.

It will 

### benoted throughout the history of thla statute that therehas bsen Son3 Jhangefrom time to time in thewording as above indioated, for example, under the ,

Acts of 1905 the law provided that the bonds should be issued "'in

conformitywith this hot". Under the oodlfioation

of 1911theg W3Te to be issued nin foniotity w%th this ohapte+f'.~

'Underthe revision of 1925 they.were to be issued *ln oonfoFlaity viiththis subdivision*,which phraseology has been oerried forward to successivsar?endmnte down throu& the amendment of 1935. There oan be little doubt but that the Legislature intended to have common sohool district refundingbonds approved and issued In the

samemanner as that required for independent sohool dfatriots. By changing the reference from "thisAct" to "this ohapterW to "this subdivislonn,we think that no material ohangehas been effected.

In the case oi ~Ennls v. Grump, 6 Tex. 34,whioh was oitea-inAdsms v. State, 145 S. 1::. 940, the court said2

"Themere ohange of-phraseology insthe rev1slon or s statute beforeenforcedwill~n.ot work a chang6 in the law previously declared, uniess it clearlya?pesrs that such was the intention of the Lagislature".

In construinda revisionof statutes the presumption is that the codtiiers and the Legi.sla'ture did no",intend to change the laws as they formerly stood and emere ahange of QhPW30logy or punctuation, or the additionor omission Of words in.revision or codification of statutes does not naoes-sarlly,c))snga the operation orWYect thereof and Will not bs deemed 6% do.so unless the intent tomake euoh change,is alear and unmistakable. The provisions ol'3ie'Bct of 1905 relative to the issuance of refunding bonds by independent schoo$ dj.striots, in our opinion,has been carried forward and embodied in a revialon or codification the same inmeaning, and in words whioh are suSst,agtiany under the authoritiessuoh,slig& ohangea 81% 'to

be considered imnaterialand the law may b consideredas a oontinuanceof the old law.

Thera is no question but thst throughout tha history of this particular statuterefunding bonds of independent school districts are required to be approved by theAttorney General, and when connnon school.

dlstriotsWere authorized to issuerefundlni:bondawe think the oon&itions atteohing to the issuame of refunding bonds by independent sahool distrfotsbecame cqtially a8 applicable. The phrase "under the provisions of this subaiVlSiOn*, as round inArticle 2789, as amended (supra), in our opinion hes referenceto the condltioasunderwhioh school districts generally have tkie authority to issue bonds ori&nsl.ly. This authority is found in Article 2785

orVernon's Annotated Civil Btatutes - the pertinent part reads asfollows:

YSuoh bonds shall be examined by the Attorney General and, ii approved,registered by the Comptrol16r,r",

You are, therefore, advisedthat in our opinion~a-. funding bonds of common s&ooJ districtsnust be approved by the Attorney Oeneral prior to their issuance.

Trusting that the roragoing fully 

### answersyour inquiry,wa are 

### Very truly rcurs

ATTU&EY GENEENL OF TEX3.S

GBC-s:jrb By /a/ Clarenoe JL 

### Crovfm ClsrenoeE. Cro'Ne

Assistsat

. . -:-.

.