Grover Sellers AunmN.il.Trc-rJ
A¶-r"YNIIY
.iXiNrnRA,.
Hon. M. PI.Wilshire : Opinion Ro. Ok5944 ”
County Auditor R.e: Can the :Commissioners’ Court of
Kaufman County Haufman County ::sallpart :of the bonds
Kaufman, Texa,s @, question,which ‘areheld~by the
Permane& School Fu@d, to the.City of
Kemp at 85% of par value, which wer~e
Dear Sir: purchased at,62% :of~
spar value?
You&~lette]rof .%arch21, is!.inpart as f.olloWs:
“The Permanent,school fund of Kaufman County
owns $l5 000 of ‘Cityof Kemp Refunding Bonds
date of issue 1934 which were purchased at 828%
of par value. Thig,bond,sare.due in 1974 and carry
an interest rate ;-~of
',3&L
Y@e City ~of K&p has,..onhand -#,5000 in ‘their
Interest & ~Sinkingfund ,.and A.the,comlis-
have ,a~ske
sioners’ Court to allow them to. take ,up part of
these bonds at 8,5$of .,par
va$ue,,,even~,
though they
are not due,.., :I ::
,:,.... :;i.
“Please advises,
whether :or,notthe Commissioners’
Court can sell p’artof these bonds which are held
by the Permanent Sohool fund to the~,Cityr of Kern
at 85% of par value, which were purchased at 62!#
of ,parvalue.“~:, ‘,,:
Under,Article 2824 of the Revised Civil Statutes,
the Conrniss~iopers’Court of the county,is authorized and em-
powered to invest the Permanent School Fund of the county in
the type of securitieslisted in the statute. Boydstun et al.
vs. Rockwall County, 24 S.W. 272.
Your inquiry, in effect raises the question of whether
the power to invest carries with it the power to dispose of in-
vestments held by the Permanent School F’undthrough sale thereof
at a price equal to or exceeding the amount paid for the invest-
ment securitiesproposed to be sold. As an original matter,
the questionwould not be free from doubt, although our Supreme
Court in the case of South American Mortgage Company v. Massie,
94 Texas, 339, 60 S.W.544, indicated that the power to substitute
investmentsis inherent in the continuingpower to invest.
Hon. M. M. Wilshire, page 2
In substantiallyits present form and verbiage,
however, the provisions of Article 2824 of the 1925 revision
of our statutes has long been in effect. We are aware of the
long continued constructionwhich has been placed upon the
provisions by the several Commissioners'Courts of this State
in their handling of the School Funds of the Counties. The
Commissioners'Courts generally have assumed to exercise the
power to sell investment seouritiesheld for their County
Permanent School Funds where it was possible in their judgment
to obtain securitiesoffering terms which were more favorable
to the investmenttrust fund committed to their management.
It is a well settled rule of statutory constructionplaced
upon it by the officers chargedwith its enforcement,while
not binding, is entitled to weight in the determining of the
meaning of the statute; and that where this constructionhas
been continued over a long period of time it will not be over-
turned except for strong reasons of public policy, unless the
constructiongiven the statute is clearlv erroneous. Moorman
vs. Terre11 165 Tex. 173 202 S.W. 727, Kay vs. Schneider,
110 Tex. 369 221 S.W. 886.
In view of the long continued constructionplaced
upon this statute by the several CommissionerstCourts of this
State, and of the rights and liabilitieswhich have attached by
reason of their actions based upon the constructionof the stat-
ute, that the power to sell investment securitiesheld by the
Permanent School Fund of the county at a price equal to or ex-
ceeding the amount paid for the same was inherent in the power
vested in the Commissioners'Court to invest the Fund, we feel
constrainedto follow that constructionof the statute. For
that reason your question is answered in the affirmative.
,APPROVEDAPR 11, 1944 Yours very truly
/s/ Geo. C. Blackburn
(Acting) ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
OF TEXAS
By /s/ Gaynor Kendall
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEG Gaynor Kendall, Assistant
~BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN
CK?ned:wb