OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
ATTOIINCI GENERAL
Beaerablc J. C. 8.0
Criminal Di atrist bt tornry
B818rm co\lntt
Cord aab8, ?a888
to be bnrrored.
ontention haa been
Our State Statute8
hoal Borrd where a
member of the
alo la the Sahool Trot curer for
uyrt 31, 1946, and al though Mr.
dual, be III at the same time Aa-
the bank from rhon a loan la be-
“I would an npiaion
apprsolate from you as to
wbrthsr or not the sabool board
is lvthoriaed and
ompawered ta borrow money Worn a bank whore a maw
bar of muob rahool board 18 8180 a direator in the
Bank where tbe money in sought to be borro8ed~g
You apt ndllaad
rcsFectfu!?y thi!t the Schnal Boerd is
not euthorlzec! mono7 from a bank where a member of nuah
to bnrrm
g&o01 Poord fs rlcrr, F dSroctor in t.he ban:; Croa: rl.i.& the money
is rouph t t.o hc lwrrored.
.
lonarable J. C. nos - PagO 2
IS am old am the common Law that a pub110 oPflolal
It
uy not in bir effialal oapaoitj make a aontraot In whioh ha 18
paevaiarll~ intweeted. Willi8tnn an Cnntraotm, Vol. 6, 800.
1736. lot only did Texas adopt the COmon Law am tbs rvle et
&eoialon as early aa 1840, bvt the foregoing principle ham been
eonaiatantl~ affirmed *herever the question hae arimen.
Such a holding wea made in !J’lanikin v. Fokea, 16 tax.
160, wherein the first 6vpreme Court of Texas held that a aom-
missioner of tha GoVernmeat to sell land aovld not wake ‘a oon-
treat rhioh would g:ire him an Interest in an official act to be
done by him,” uyiag that Nab ‘
rovld be repugnant. to I lw Andy
round moral i ty lm
In City of Edinbarg v. Ellis, 69 9. m. (2) 99, JvdC;a
sharp of the Commlaaion aaId
*It la tho genaral rule tba t mvalcipal con-
tracts in which offleers or employees of the aity
hara a personal pecuniary Interest l ro void. 44
C. J. pp. 69-M; 6 R.C.L., pp. 739-740. l l l
‘The foregoing rule rests upon mound public
policy. objeot 1s to lnnura to the city
Its etrlat
fIdelit upon the part ot those rho represent It
and manage Its afialra. The rvle prohibiting pvb-
lia officers from heing lntereetod in ~ubllc con-
treats should be scrvpvlnnsty enforce3.’
In an opinion dated September In, 1829, addressed to
Honorable I?. Il. II. Marra , Et8te Evparlntendent oi Public ID-
ntruction, this department adrlsed t.hat the direotor of a cor-
poration mwrin& aa depositary or treanvrer of an Independent
school 4lstrict would be ineligible f’or appointment and qvmli-
fiaation aa a trustee of tbe sohool dintrlct. This opinion was
followed by this department in 0pinion No. 0-5158 holdjnc the
sme thinu. There are other opinions oi thfs department to the
name effect.
The same rlee that entorr into a contract of deposit
by a public board or offloar with a bank or institution in which
he ~PII a pecuniary Interest inheros in a contract of lo&n. A de-
posl t. Is la oosonoe a loan by the depouitor to the denoaltee bank.
The sum deposited becomea the property or t,ho hank and the bank a
debtor to the depositor therefor.
357
Bonorrbl e J. 0. Roe - paga 3
It la aot a qvoatloa whether the pertioular omtraot
thus forbidden is bvrt?vl. It might, on the contrary, he mtval-
1~ hanailelalr but tbo law will not permit an lnqulr7 jnto tba
ratus aonasqvenoeo nf tba tranuatlon~ It ie contrary to aovnd
pobli0 polioy.