Hanomble J. H. Willlam
County AudItor
SmraIlt county -, .:
port worth, Texas
Opinionfhrmbero-5691
Rer Ohder the eiven facts,
am the Tam-antCounty
RomlandBridgeboads
in question aubjeat to
"a refunded?
He are In Pea0ipt’afyour letter. of recentdate,
,.vhiahie 'quoteau Sqllovst:,:;~.: ::: . 1 ..
',I ~.
.
‘"InlPl2 Tarrantocimty it&ml ~z,600,000Read
MdBridgebondssnb~arlngiaterestat~rrrtn
OS 5%. :In 1922 the~Cmntissictners Court OS l'emmnt
County refbuded S part OS .thene bands at 4-3/&i. :.
There are now cutatanding$360&00 OS these Re-
fUndingBonds and the Districtand County Road
Bond Ccmilttee,throughMr. Joe HeYson has called
upon the Cambslonerr,~Caurt.oS.thirCounty to .-.:'.: .~..
refund them bonds alaimingthey fall-undertae
ruling In the Cochmn County decision of the
supzwe court. .Of'course the Bond brokersam
opposedto having these bonda milledand advlmo
that there vi11 be lltlgatlonif tM.8 County at-
tempts to reSund these bondr. Ammg other am-
tations they plake,is the aontentioathat the
mle announaed~fnthe Co&ran County oarsevould
not apply to rei'undingbonda, but anlp to the
orlgf.mlissue. In order that you may know vhat'
the order OS theCc+amlselonera Comtwaa at the
time of the tseuanceor the FefUndingbands, vith
respectto msturitiea,I enclosea copy.of that
;;m~lon of the CoWa order deal- vith matUb
.
. -..,. *. ,.. :
:I ahauld like to have ~&iFo&nion ar 'to
--
" _"~:
whether these bonds iiWiimti3mbjeotto being CeSundad,
(,‘:
Xonor@bleS. M. Yillkms, rsgS 2
am~whetheryou aouldandvtildapprove ruchre-
iundingboWsa8t.helavvouldrequlrepoatodo
In order to runder them valld,obllgetionm
OS ~JI%II '.'
Countr.
"IS we aanlegally reSonithe8e bond& rs Se01
ve muut do 80 under the demand OS the$ounty an&Din-
I."~~$F'd ~ B"., m-w==
r .*,:;, ..,.
-:.-, ?~-W-..
.y..;y..;.. :;f..a'..',:,~
/..., 'I
.<.
Replyingto the SoregoJx~question,you ai'eadvised
tbatthu oplnlonlntheCoahmnCountyo86o aeeau~tolnalude
all bonds lsrruedunder authorityo? Cbnpter1, Title 21, Re-
..+l8ed Statutm 1911, nov Chnpter2, !PltIe22, Reviml Statutes
1925. Art&la ,725is lnaluded In Cbepter 2, Title 22, aad made
u f0llowl:
3her8bond8
h6ive
been
iagdiyissued, or may
be hereaSter%ifsuedSor any piwpoae'authorized in 1
thh ahapter,new boP4r in lieu th0reoi bearing
%hiv,uaw or a mfer patteOS lntere8tmay be &sued, '.
in.4ceuonn1tywith 6rlutfllglaw, and t&e oGidsalon-
or# ~eoust-mylmsoe'e~uahbond8 to ~8ture ce??lall$
or ethexW.ue,not to exceed IWty years Sraa their
p. 16~ Aatu 1893, p. ll2j G.L.
:'E&y; ;g;P '..~
.
._
. . ~
.,.‘~.y:
.“~..!~
.,,
--:X0%s ouropl..ulcm
tbst.tbeSupremeCourt‘uouldhold
that the rclSunding
bad8 are optional,and w are thwefqre ap-
vr c wl l x bonda.'.
'tahq
'.
~'>
@imy ~tJ?ulY
yoyrn;.__ : : ..
ATTORHEYGXRRALOFTfzxAs
.“BY .. /a/ 0. F. Gibmri. ‘:
C. F. Olbaon
Asriatrnt
.
CXG-aret
APPROVEDmm.4, 1943
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion