Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Bonorabh D. Riuh8z-d Vogaa County Attormy Ullson ccunty Flox6avllls, T6XfM SPOPI gouP Honorable D. Richard Vogeu, Page 2 having duly waived notioa snd filed his raiusal to proraauta daliuquant tax suits, and such contraot having baen duly spprovod by the Ccmptmller end Attorney Canoral. “That vhL1a and during the tfne that such con- tract betveen W. E. Seals and Wilcon Couhty, vas fn fill foroe and affect, the Lsvernia Xndopendant school District entered into the oontract vith ?iurphy Xarper br Company. The County Delinwant tax collaot- or vaa handling tha aollaatloa of taxas in such sahool dirtriot, M filing malts vharaver naoassmy, by virtue of his contrsot vith the County. “The County Attorney of’ Wlleon Couhty, did not hava say kuowladgo of the propoaad oohtract batveen the Levernis School District and tha Xurphy Xnrpar Ib Ccmpnny, and did rmt recalve any notice to file de- liaQwz& tax 8uitr iOr auah dlstrlat, aor did ha axe- cute any valvar, other thau with refersnae to the Scale Contract vlth the County. *The contraat provide8 Sor aaapaarotfon under pnr@gPnph VIII1 ‘first Party ay~aas to pay to saoond Party as oompansatlau far the semices hereunder ra- quixwd $350.00 Dollars, payable out of tha f’lnt aal- leotions of dalinquent taxes, panaltiaa and interest aollacrtad$ to pnrtially ~OVOP the toate OS &eok%ng tha dal.iniwent tax roLl8, 8tationery, atrunpr, 8nd other prollmlxary costs to ba lnaurred 2.n the prforr- an60 of this omtraot$ and @m sdditlonal aaopnt aqua1 to fiftsan pax oant (IL!@) of the amount aolloatad of all delinquent taxes, panaltias, and tntoraat for tha years soverad thareby, actually collaotad and paid to the aollactor of taxes dur%ng the term of this aontraat. l l fk fW Under the facts presented 5.x your letter of Doeambar 23, 191, ua held l.u Opinion Ho. O-4298, sddresaed to you, thst the aontraet between Xurphy Harper 8 Carrpauy and the Lavam3.a Indopeu- dent School ??iatPiCt WA8 Void. The powam of independent sahool district trustees ara given lxi 37 Tax. Jur. p. 939, vhara It Fs aaldc Honorabls D. Rluhard Vog.8, Page 3 “As 18 the rule ~~mtrally * l l tha tru8to.r of ladepamdent who01 dlrtrlotm passers oaly the powers expnmly eonfemwd by law or ~aeoowarlly Implied from potmrs aonferred. l l l In the cam of Temple Inde endonE Schaol Dlmtrlct va. Proator (Clv. App.) 97 3. W, (26) 10g 7, it vas held that Artlole 2780, R. C. S., 1925, la appllaabls to all topea OS Independent dtstriots whether in lnoorporated oltler or not. lib think that said Artlsle 2780 authorimw the trustees of the Lavemla Inde- pendent Sahaol Dlstrlot to lnstltute suit for the raooverg OS money paid out by It under the provlalons OS a void oontraat. Your question I* therefore aaavered In tha aSSlmatlve. Iaura very truly ATTOIOlgll (WWRAL OF TRXAS