Honorable R. L. Crosier 

County Attorney 

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?strlat Ro. SO?- 

Article 27So of~Vernon*s Annotated 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 

less rate of interest may'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 i 8 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 ~the Forty-fourth Lcgislatar6, page 760, Chapter 331. The artiole likewise wa8 emendedby the Acts of 1933, Forty~third,Lsgialature, page 62, 6h. 

',',;o;he prior Act being a Dart o? the aodiftoatlon of 1925, 

to which said arti+6lwaa known as Artlole 2864 of the 
1911 Rsvised Civil Statutes: The first law authorizlng,.ths 

issuance of refunding bonds by a school distriot 0r any kind 

1s found in the Aats 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 

~sohool districts and independent achool districts, to be approved by the Attorney General before same were issued and 

sold. It was also necessary that new or refuhdlw bohdn ISsued by an independea school district should first be epprwed by the Attorney General. ITo authority was oonferred upon 

common sohooi disiriots to issue refunding bonds, 

Under the revision of 1911 this section of the Aot of 

1905 was given the number 2864, which article authorized in&- 

pendent school,distrlcts to issue refund1n.g bonds ninoonformity with this chapter*. The reference to "'this chapter" 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 independent and common, and both of 

whioh were required to,uubmit the bond proceedings to the Attorneg General for approval prior to their issuance en8 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~refnnding bonds "in oonformfity with 

this subdivisionVt-. Artiole 2789, as amended in 1933 and 1935, 

usea exactly the same wording as the revised artiole of 1925. 

It wea not until the amendment of 1933 that common schocl districts were authorized to issue new er refunding bonds. 

It will be noted throughout the history of thla 

statute that there has bsen Son3 Jhange from time to time 

in the wording as above indioated, for example, under the 

, 

Acts of 1905 the law provided that the bonds should be issued "'in conformity with this hot". Under the oodlfioation 

of 1911theg W3Te to be issued nin foniotity w%th this 

ohapte+f'.~ 'Under the revision of 1925 they.were to be issued *ln oonfoFlaity viith this subdivision*, which phraseology has been oerried forward to successivs ar?endmnte 

down throu& the amendment of 1935. There oan be little 

doubt but that the Legislature intended to have common 

sohool district refunding bonds approved and issued In the 

same manner as that required for independent sohool dfatriots. By changing the reference from "this Act" to "this 

ohapterW to "this subdivislonn, we think that no material 

ohange has been effected. 

In the case oi ~Ennls v. Grump, 6 Tex. 34, whioh was 

oitea -in Adsms v. State, 145 S. 1::. 940, the court said2 

"The mere ohange of-phraseology ins the rev1slon or s statute before enforced will~n.ot 

work a chang6 in the law previously declared, 

uniess it clearly a?pesrs that such was the 

intention of the Lagislature". 

In construind a revision of statutes the presumption 

is that the codtiiers and the Legi.sla'ture did no", intend to 

change the laws as they formerly stood and e mere 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 or WYect thereof and Will not bs 

deemed 6% do.so unless the intent to make 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 in meaning, and 

in words whioh are suSst,agtiany 

under the authorities suoh,slig& 

ohangea 81% 'to be considered imnaterial and the law may b 

considered as a oontinuance of the old law. 

Thera is no question but thst throughout tha 

history of this particular statute refunding bonds of 

independent school districts are required to be approved by the Attorney General, and when connnon school. dlstriots Were authorized to issue refundlni: bonda we think 

the oon&itions atteohing to the issuame of refunding 

bonds by independent sahool distrfots became cqtially a8 

applicable. The phrase "under the provisions of this subaiVlSiOn*, as round in Article 2789, as amended (supra), 

in our opinion hes reference to the condltioas under whioh 

school districts generally have tkie authority to issue 

bonds ori&nsl.ly. This authority is found in Article 2785 

or Vernon'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, advised that in our opinion ~a-. 

funding bonds of common s&ooJ districts nust be approved by 

the Attorney Oeneral prior to their issuance. 

Trusting that the roragoing fully answers your inquiry, wa are 

Very truly rcurs 

ATTU&EY GENEENL OF TEX3.S 

GBC-s:jrb 

By /a/ Clarenoe JL Crovfm 

Clsrenoe E. Cro'Ne 

Assistsat 

. . 

-:-. 

.