AURTIN aa. TWAB
April 20, 3953
HOna Fred C. Brigman, Jr. Opinion No. S-31
County Attorney
Uvalde County Ret Legality of the county at-
.Uvalde, Texas torney accepting private
employment to maintain an
injunction action adverse
to the collection of oer-
tafn taxes by an lndepend-
Dear Sir! ent &ohool .dlstrlot e
In substance you have. aeked thie office for its
opinion on tihe following question:
May a county attorney represent a prl-
v&e clfent in a tauft to e&loin an fndepen- r
~~tti;;ho&~dietfict from collection of a
0
There f8 a etriot limitation on the unofficial
enzploynent of a oounty attorney fnr&ticle 32 of the Code
of CrfmInal Procedure of ‘l!exa~~ which protides:
“Dlstrlct and county attorney6 ahall
not bye of counsel adversely to the State in
ar\.y0866~ in any court, nor shall they, after
timy cease to be euoh officers, be of course1
efmmely to the State in any oaae in which
they have been counsel for the State.”
zntbeoarreof ove v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex.
351, 40 S.W.2d 20, 26 (1 l), the Supreme Court said:
“School tlfstrfate are looal public
oorporatfons of the same general charaoter
a8 municipal corporatioshe. 0 . They are
defined ae quasf-municipal corporations,
and derive their powers by delegation fFom
the state. They are state agencies, erected
and employed for the purpose of adminfster-
ing the etate ‘8 syetem of publio schools.”
Hon. Fred C. Brlgman, Jr., page 2 (S-31) ..*
In the case of Treadawav v- Whitney 13.D.. 205
S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Clv.App. 13m In d&iding that plalntlff
could not hold the school district liable for the negll-
gence of ite agent school bus driver, the court aaid:
“Just because the services rendered in
this respect, are performed withfn the limits
of the city does not make such functions
loaal in nature but their effeot and lmpor-
tance are statewide and are performed for
the benefit of 811 the people., There are
many respects in which a city can act In a
proprietary capacity, but ft Is hard to
imagine how a school district could act fn
imch a Capac.ttY, the purpose for which it 1s
created being purely overnmentali and when
casrylng out the func &ions for which It was
thus created ff could aat only 89 anagent
of the state. 9 *”
The court in th@ case of SoNthweatern Broad-
go* v. 051 &enter &oadca%tlng C’0.x, 0 S.W.sd
.Clv,App, 1947, wror ref. N.RsE.r say%:
“An Independent school district is a
quasi-municipal corporatIoni Under the law
it 9,s entrusted with t&e duty of managing
the schools.to~ the e&ent of the power
delegated, ~‘b:t; has be@% said that the pub-
lla school 8y%t%hrA% a part of the State
&wernment e pqt&& Maws, 120 Tex. 383,
40 S.W.2d 31.
ArtSole 7343, Vernon’s Clvll Statutea; provides
in port:
I, * Inrle~pendent school dfstrlct.0 may
oollecii ihefr delfnqu#??t tax&s a% above
provided for eftfoe &ad town@. 9 q T%e
school board.may, whea the delinquent tax
lists and recoz”da ape . roperly prepared and
ready for suit% to be r iled, instruct the
aounty attorney to file said suit+. If the
school board fn8truots the CoU?dy at%Orney
to file safd suite and he fails or refuse8
to do BQ within sfxty day6 the school board
Ran. Pred C. Brlgman, Jr o5 page 3 (S-31)
may employ some other attorney of the
county to file suft. The county attorney,
,or other attorney, filing tax suits for
independent school districts, shall be en-
Cltled to the same fees as provided by law
in suits for State and county taxes, = =”
It is the oplnlon of this office that the
collection of a tax levfed by an independe~nt school dis-
trict. is an act of a State agency, and therefore the
act of the State, and thus I.f the co~unty attorney should
be employed by private clients to enjoin the collection
.of such ttax he would be “of counsel advers:e,ly to the
Statm” in contravention of Art;l,c’l’e 35Z2,V.C iG ,P.
The collection of a tax levIed b; an,
Independent school Ol,str;&ct ,xs en act of
the St.te. Ar’t:i$Le 32, ,V.C .,C i P - , proh$b$ts
a c~~wmty attoxzgy being emp&oyed as counsel
a&versely t,0 the State. ‘Therefore, a
COutlty attorney may not be employed as
counsel for a private client to enjoin the
aol~ectfon of a tax levied by an independent
schg~l district.
Yours very truly,
APPROVRD: JOHN B&J SREPPERD
Attorney General
J. C. Davis, Jr.’
County ilffairs DivUion
Willis E, Gresham
Reviewer
Aaslietant
Robert S. Trottf
First Assistant
John Den Shepperd
Attorney General
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion