MaJr 23, 1939 ,
Hon. T. M. Trimble Opinion Noe o-840
First Assistant State Re: Whether bonds voted for the
Superintendent purpose of repairing ana equip-
Austin, Texas ~plng school building may be used
for the purchase of school busses.
Dear Sir:
We are in receipt of your letter of May 17, 1939,
wherein you request our opinion in response to the following
questions:
“1. If a school,district votes bonds for the
purpose or repairing end equipping a school building,
and to purchase school site, would It be legal for the
board to spend this bond money for school busses or to
pay bus notes?
“2. Of what offense if any, would the board be
guilty if they did spend iond money for busses? What
would the penalty be, if any?e~
Article 2784 Revised Civil Statutes, sets forth
certain purposes for wtL ch the oommissionersf court for the
common school districts In its county, and the district
school trustees for the independent school districts may
levy taxes and issue bonds. It is therein provided that
“no tax shall be levied, collected, abrogated, dlminisheed or
inoreased, and no bonds shall be issued hereunder, until such
action has been authorized by a majority of the votes cast at
an election held in the district for such purpose, at which
none but property tax paying qualified voters of such dis-
trict shall be entitled to vote.*
Article 2786, Revised Civil Statutes, requires the
petition, election order and notice of election to distinctly
speaify among other things, the purpose for which the bonds
are to t e used. It also provides that the proceeds of such
bonds l*shall be disbursed only for the purpose for which the
said bonds were issuedrU
In the case of Carroll v. Williams, 202 Sew. 504,
the use of county funds for purposes different from those for
which the same wer.e raised was involved. We quote from the
Hon. T. M. Trimble, page 2
opinion of the Supreme Court as follows:
“Second. Going to the real gist of the main
issue before us, section 9 of article a of our
state Constitution, supra, inNbits any and all
transfers of tax money from one to another of the
several classes of funds therein authorized, and,
as a sequence, the expenditure, for one purpose
therein defined, of tax money raised ostensibly
for another such purpose. The immediate purpose
in so pre,scribing a separate maximumtax rate for
each of the classes of purposes there enumerated
is, no doubt, to limit, accordingly the amount
of taxes which may be raised from 8he people, by
taxation, declaredly for those several purposes
or classes of purposes, respectively. But that
is not all. The ultimate and practical and ob-
vlous design and purpose aa legal effect Is to
inhibit excessive expenditures for any such pur-
pose or class of purposes. By necessary implica-
tion said provisions of section 9 of article a
were designed, not merely to limit the tax rate
for certain therein designated purposes, but to
require that any and all money raised by taxa-
tion for any such purpose shall be applied, faith-
fully, to that particular purpose, as’needed. there-
for, and not to any other purpose or use whatso-
ever. Those constitutional provisions control,
not only the raising, but also the application,
OP all such funds; and such Is the legal effect
of articles 2242 and 7357, supra, when properly
construed and applied.”
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in the above case
applies with full force to the situation which you outlined to
us. The bonds which you mention were voted for the purpose of
repairing and equipping a school building and to purchase a
school site . The electorate authorized the same under the as-
’ surance that the proceeds of the bonds would not be used for
any other purpose. Speaking of Article 6674e, Revised Civil
Statutes, providing for the deposit of certain moneys in the
State Highway Fund, the Austin Court of Civil Appeals, through
Chief Justice McClendon in the case of Johnson vs. Ferguson, 55
S.W.(2d) 153, said:
“As such allocation we think it had the mani-
fest purpose of removing such fund, beyond all doubt
_
Hon. T. M. Trimble, page 3
or peradventurei from the general revenue fund
of the state an of devoting it, but not appro-
priating it, to the stated purpose. It served
the double purpose of a declaration of policy
and a direction to the state treasurer that the
fund was not to be invaded for purposes other
than those named in the article.”
The proceeds of the bonds which you mention cannot
be invaded for any purpose except the purpose for which such
bonds were voted. Your first question is answered in the
negative.
The diversion of this money from the stated purpose
being quite plainly forbidden, we think it is to be assumed
that the authorities having charge of this money will not use
the same for any prohibited purpose, and we, therefore, do not
believe that it is necessary to anew.er your second question.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF TEXAS
By /s/ Glenn B. Lewis
Glenn R.~ Lewis, Assistant
APPROVED
/s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
APPROVED:OPINIONCOMMITTEE
BY: CEK, CHAIRMAN
GRL:N:wb