Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN Honorable Alfred N. Steinle County Attorney Ateacoaa County Jourdnnton, Texae Deer Sir: 06, attorneys* iser th6 84x10and 01: not pmit adrad .fr0m par- re-lnvestnrentof the oa8h la 'the s8h001 ma or the wqtnty sh0uia bboma the Permanent hrnd or the hw!llable TO amwer your fir6t i+WtlOn we deeatit neoembary that we review the oon6tltutionbl provlelon anb laws unUer whiah the countiqs or thle State hete been apportioned land for school purposes. By virtue of-an Ad approved January 28, 1839, oertain leaguea cr land were granted to W&Y~.X&~~OWJ oounties of the State rt3r purposes of eaumion. Honoreble A$fred .R. Steinle, page #S was enlarged upon by the Act of Jenuary 16, 1850. At en election on August 14, 1883, Section 6, Article 7, was adopted end became s !art of our present Constitution. This provision reads, in pert: "All land heretofore or heraaiter granted to the several counties of this State for edu- cetional purposes are of right the property of said counties, res?ectlvely, to which they were granted end title thereto la vested in said oountlee ena no adverse poasea8lon or Mmltation ahall ever be available a'gainstthe tltle,of any ooutlty* l * Eac~coQnty may Sell or aiSpOSt# or Ii8 lend in whole or In part 1i1a manner to be provided by the COlIEUi88iOnerS': oorirtOS the ohlllty. Said laid and the procee& thereof when cold 8hal.lbe held byisaid countle8~a~one a8 a true% for .thebenefit o$ pub110 school&therein; said proceeds tombe .inYe!stedin bonds of$h8 u&tea StCIte8, the 8tat&@f ‘f8ZWOr Caadti88 h 8aia Stite, or In SUch if&her 8eOUriti88~ and under atch re8trlatlqn8~as ~i+y be pre8Oribed Iiy law; aaU.the counties ehall bk.res mlble for all investments; the lntemst- .$ *ozIic.r~ ereon an revenue, eroqit the princ+l,':<~8htil .~ be avail- able fund~..~ F%W5Uant t0 this COIIStitUtlOndlpr&l8iOn the La&S- lature enacted Article 2824, OS thenRevleed.Civil Statute8 ore. 1925, whioh prescribe&the type oftinda in whloh the uo11opie- oloaere* court8 of the varlouS.countlq8~+8reauthorized to invest the proaeeda or the sale of the land granted to them for educational pu.rposeS. This artiole’?$ikerriee re+IIplV38i8eS that provision of the Conatltutlon relating to the Use8 of the income derived thererrdm. It etattd In clear language that *only the interest thereon to be ueed end.expsnded amllY*" iYethink the question well nettle that the FOrpQa of %he Soho' fund must remain Intact an8 unused, and that only the earnings *herefrom shall ever be expended. The returns from the investment of the Permanent School Fund become the "avalfablefundN end the manner of expending such income is limited by the provision of Article Honorable Xl?red N. Steinle, psge#3 2827 CP the Revised Civil Statutes or 1925. We think there Is no westion but thet the interest collected on the ~a- dor's lien note retained by Atescoaa County beoame a part of the Xw:lleble Fund.nnd, as such fund, it passed from the jurisdiction of tie Commissioners* Court of the county and subsequent ex-pendlturestherefron can be made solely upon the outhorlzation of the County Board of Trustees and the County Superintendent acting as their agent. See the oa8e of Oge et al vs. Froboese et al, 66 S. W. 6138, (rehearing denied). In our opinion this preoludes the CO!mi88ioner8* Court or the ccunty from ra8orting to the Avallabl8Tund Sol:the payment of ooste, expenses, attorneye' iserrand taxes which may have accrued agalnclt~theland heretofore granted to the county for educational purposes. Article e951,Sectlon 0, of the Revieed Clvl& Stat- utes of 1925, read8 as fOllw8: BohoolS." We, theretore, think that it beoame.the duty-o? tbo ~IsIIIIb8iOn~8'Court to bring suit to reaover the land ln queatlon, and thatany expense incurred a8 a re8ult +r*? 8hould be borne by the oounty. In SUppOrt Of thi8 cOnClll8iOu we cite from the case o? Toml$naon Ys.~Ropkin8,Coopty$-report- ed in Volum& 57 of the Texa8 Reports, at page‘.ElR,wherein the courtspeaking through Associata.Justice Bohner said: *The whole policy of the sereral acts, both of the Republlo and or the State of Texas, ltigranting land'for the eatab- lishment~o? a general system o? educatfon Wa8 to make the land thus granted an available net ?und for this purpoee; ana it was not Intended that any part or it should be divert- ed to any other purpose, not even to the expense of lccating and surveying it.* These lends were granted to the VEiriOU8 counties in trust ?or the benefit of the schools of such counties, and the counties have been made responsible ?br the sefeguerdfng of such tunas aa may hsve been derived rrcm the sale of the land granted to it. Honorable Alfred K. Steinle, page ,& "All agricultural or grazing school lend mentioned in Section 6 of this article owned by any county shall be subject to taxation ex- cept for State purposes to the same extent es land privately owned.*' Therefore, we think that if the lands of ktascosa County ly- ing Within LaSalle County are 8lassi?l,edas either agriou- tural or grazing land, then it must follow that Ataaoorra Caunty la liable for the taxea'due LaSslle County, Pn the ease 0s~Childress County YS. 8tate"et al, reported in 92 s. w. (2d) 1011, the Supreme Court said: *Where agrloultural school. land was sold by counties to individual8 who failed to comply with contraots of sale, whereup0n title to lands vverted to oounty; such land wuia not be burdened with ,taxeedue the State during time land wa8 pri*atelp owned,* a$ the.same wQrt, speakingiurther, said4 ?A wuxtty which did noere- aOqtire title ~tosgrlcUlttlra180hool land situated in anoth8b oounty until February, 1933, .r&acqulrsdland m@jeot to tares due ench other aaunty ?or the years 1951 8x@ 1992, anl the county re-aoquirlng laad hed:.optiono? pfiylngtaxee to proteat Its Interest or let land be .a01d @r.such taxe8 * *". In other word8, the courthela that a judgment r0r tare8 aoly ad lawfully 1eYled agfiia8t88hOOl land could not be.en?oroed against the carnty to whom euOh~landa&.d been gra8ted, but this, in our opinion,.doee not relleYe‘~the..respoQaible oounty &? liability to the Penmnent Sohool l%nd o?‘it8 county. summing up these opinion, the expense8 of the land belonging to the county must be pald~from the that the taxes duly and law?ully Isvied agblnst such~lsnd by &&lle County may be paid out of the revenue derived from the u, but that in the event there is no such revenue tmsuch taxes shall be paid from the @eneral.tid. See A,tlcie Ylnoa, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925. To answer your second question pre refer you to the last sentence of Section 6, Article 7, o? the Conetitutfon, which provides: i Honorable Alfred N. Stelnle, page #5 "Interest thereon and other revenue, except the principal, shall be available funds." We think the expression "other revenue" Is intended to cover any revenue earned by the Permanent School Fund as a result of the investment of the proceeds o? the sale of lend granted by law to that county for educational purposes. Then it necessarily ?ollaws that our conclusion is that any profit earned by this fund should beoome a part of the Avail- able Fund. very truly pUr8 i?TORWEYGENKRALOFTEXM JyL-4 &---+- Clarenoe B. Crow A88i8tMt .APPRovJm: OPIWIOR COlIltamm BY B.W.B., Chsirmsn