Grover Sellers

A¶-r"YNIIY

.iXiNrnRA,. AunmN.il.Trc-rJ

Hon. M. PI.

Wilshire : OpinionRo. Ok5944 ” County Auditor R.e: Can the :Commissioners’ Court of Kaufman County HaufmanCounty ::sall part :ofthe bonds Kaufman, Texa,s @, question, which ‘are

held~ by the Permane& School Fu@d, to the. City of Kemp at 85% of par value, which wer~e Dear Sir: purchasedat, 62% :of~ sparvalue?
You&~ lette]r of .%arch21, is!

.in part as f.olloWs:
“The Permanent,

school fund of Kaufman County owns $l5 000 of ‘City of Kemp Refunding Bonds date of issue 1934 which were purchasedat 828% of par value. Thig, bond,s are. due in 1974 and carry an interestrate ;-~of ',3&L
Y@e City ~ofK&p has,..on hand -#,5

000 in ‘their Interest& ~Sinking fund ,.and

have ,a~ske

A.the,comlissioners’Court to allow them to.take ,uppart of these bonds at 8,5$ of .,par va$ue,,

,even~, though they are not due,.

., :I :: ,:,.... :;i. “Please advises,

whether :or,not

the Commissioners’ Court can sell p’art of these bonds which are held by the PermanentSohool fund to the~,Cityr of Kern at 85% of par value,which were purchased at 62!# of ,par

value.“~

:, ‘,,: Under, Article 2824 of the Revised Civil Statutes, the Conrniss~iopers’ Court of the county,is authorizedand empowered to invest the PermanentSchool Fund of the county in the type of securitieslisted in the statute. Boydstun et al. vs. Rockwall County, 24 S.W. 272.

Your inquiry, in effect raises the question of whether the power to invest carrieswith it the power to dispose of investmentsheld by the Permanent School F’und through sale thereof at a price equal to or exceedingthe amount paid for the investment securities

proposed to be sold. As an originalmatter, the questionwould not be free from doubt, although our Supreme Court in the case of South AmericanMortgage Company v. Massie, 94 Texas, 339, 60 S.W.544, indicatedthat the power to substitute investmentsis inherent in the continuingpower to invest.Hon. M. M. Wilshire,page 2

In substantially

its present form and verbiage, however, the provisionsof Article 2824 of the 1925 revision of our statuteshas long been in effect. We are aware of the long continuedconstruction which has been placed upon the provisionsby the severalCommissioners' Courts of this State in their handling of the School Funds of the Counties. The Commissioners'

Courts generallyhave assumed to exercise the power to sell investment seourities held for their County Permanent School Funds where it was possible in their judgment to obtain securitiesofferingterms which were more favorable to the investmenttrust fund committedto their management. It is a well settledrule of statutoryconstruction placed upon it by the officers chargedwith its enforcement, while not binding, is entitled to weight in the determiningof the meaning of the statute;and that where this construction has been continuedover a long period of time it will not be overturned except for strong reasons of public policy, unless the construction

given the statuteis clearlv erroneous. Moorman vs. Terre11 165 Tex. 173 110 Tex. 369 221 S.W. 886. 202 S.W. 727, Kay vs. Schneider,

In view of the long continuedconstruction placed upon this statuteby the several Commissionerst Courts of this State, and of the rights and liabilities which have attachedby reason of their actions based upon the construction of the statute, that the power to sell investment securities held by the Permanent School Fund of the county at a price equal to or exceeding the amount paid for the same was inherent in the power vested in the Commissioners' Court to invest the Fund, we feel constrainedto follow that construction of the statute. For that reason your question is answered in the affirmative.
,APPROVED

APR 11, 1944 /s/ Geo. C. Blackburn (Acting)ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
APPROVED:OPINION COMMITTEG ~BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN Yours very truly
ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS By /s/ Gaynor Kendall Gaynor Kendall, Assistant

CK?ned:wb