Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN , JJ, no?zorabla P. a, bd.rath COMty AtiUitor Cooke cowkty caineov1lle, Texea .of th6 stetc or Tsntl:*, inalu5in& att010A3 627 to t&l, lnclwivd, of cauq#Aw 2, Title 18, i&aVlsed Statutes or xgll, QS aaraadad br Scratlou. 1 chapter 203, hota or 193. E@uler L;eOOlatr,and ursuaut to an 032& psaed by ti cx-aairraPoneM, Court of Cooke oounty Texftn, on the 13th day or 3q+abar#. A. C. i920, d.ll.oh order is of reoord Is nook 9, pages 33s to 3&b inoluuive, of the Mm&a Of Se$.O OQUi C.! tbsre8f. rata or interest b8rna by the bonda and pie0t1 or -3=nt of prin4iipi31 aa4 ir;torcret, OEQ rlxing rorm or bond nc4 cou on, en4 pro- ~i~iae r0r the hvy 0r ~n 66 VII E 0fa3 -X up022 theitozable property in auS3 road dletrlot nuf- ri0i6nt to pay th3 i.amfat 0% SUO~ b0m and u) pro&we e *W&ii fund for the rabony2tiw 5r the rinoipal thur0or at itimrityr are here- by le@ E 6et?, approved and vol.lQeted.” m vbew or thy; vd.id0ti511 or *&5 bonds 3x1the r0m in rhlah they were lecpued, aM lu aoeordrinoa with the order& under whloh they were lswsd the bonds may not be railecamsd bBr0ra saturity. i?osd ’31stri at Ho. 2, Colorado county v. chw$Oly (Telx. cit. Jtpg.) I.20 53. 15. (al) $59. Th6 QBBOolted ia t!!etararfiretlve OS tha point there, the bowla were issued with the provlulan thttt oarta la bon68 should be optional on 63002-t~in bate, 0uhf3~ th0 '0mt.r or d430tion ryldp0~idsd that the bfsndsahonld be optional OA any intweet pying i%&+t~ TheIBouaty BnnlsndQd in that MM that in- . grovlslon in the bon& thst tha auae ahwld be 0 t&Ml eJ.luan a dat6 amtaln l?ucs 4t varluau8 with the pru- 6Eeothi procte~u8 the pmvioicm wad invalid and i5opemtlva bo t&a sxEent’~to w&l&Wit aonrllataa with the pmelso~ion pro- CIbC?dwCi. The oeurt pakited out that thiv bon&a wra lruruelz prior to th6 d~i~ion or.3x8uni~ 0. aoogac 5iipm3, find the the lrunaanoa or th61 bonda hat been vsU4atab b,.: ~the flxct Call- Ml asalon or the 39th A.e&$uluturPr.It wao, ther8ror%, bald t&it the b&nAs were aot optianaX, eava and exocp& um th@ one data fl~~$dr~r tbu~-~dumption bof~~~~~~~ty. 330 01s~ of Ooohl"M County v+ Una la &ot appUoab2o Eo the baads Bclraunder eoneid~mtion. -3mt daoislon mlatee only tcr8ounty bosda uraued undw chapter 2 or,Tltle 22, Be- mea 1925, an& to bonda ieBu6c under the Clvll citntute#a, statutory provitians whloh were th% onceeCorllof ianptar 21 namuly, Chat 2 of l’itlct i8 of the iZaviaad Civil Stotutea .-. . or19ll. Cur o&Lon ho. CXiI+93.oototruea the sppUosbillty 3f th6 Cochrm COtUIfy 0~386) t0 COUnt$ baqdse h.oopy of It la anolosd hesmith ;‘x yclur informAlon.