OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Maroh 25, 1939
31IRM.D 0. MANN
.“an .=I-
f&T.,L.L. ~mompsan
Oounty Auditor
Taylor County
Abllene,Texas
Daar 9irt
Ur. L. R. Thompson,G.roh 3, 1939, Page 2
proved by the Commissioners*COW%, the budget,
as approved by the Court shall be filed with
the Clerk of the County Court, and taxes levied
only in aocordanoetherewith,and no expenditure
of the'fnndsof the aounty shall theresfterbe
made eroept in striot oomplianoetith the budget
as adopted by the Court. braept that emergenoy
expenditures,in ease or grave pub110 neoe68ity,
to meet unusual and unfore8esn oondltionswhioh
could not, by reasonably diligent thought and
attention,hsve.bsen InolPasd in the .orlglnal
*& na debt for any purpOi4shall eve
be lnotunvd In any stannortaysay oltg or ahtnty
tanlosap~~ision im redo, at the t&e ar oreat-
it@ the same, for levyin& and aolleoting.@
"u;r
. i. 3. Thompson,Xarah 3, 1939, Page 3
a wfflclent tax to pay t.3eInterest thereon
and provide at least two per oent (i$) a4 4
slrlkln~fund."
The word *debt* a8 ueed in the Constitutloc
hiaebeeindefined by the YupromemQurt a8 neanlng:
y:,ny peouniary obligation imposed by oou-
traot, eroept suah as were, at the date of the
contcaot,tithin the lawful end raeaonableoon-
teqrlationof the partIe8, to be satisiiodout
of the surrantrwottuear0r tbo y-r, or out
of am ~fundthen ulthla.the#ti&lato oontrol
of the oorpor8tion.*yams T. city or utt~~o,
89 Tar. 83, 53 sll388; bnuala, v. Stran&h,.
196'SR84#1 Stammmn v. 8lakr, 68 8U (&WI)
97s. 11s SW (2nd)sm. '2
~:~y..
Vfherathe requlrmnt8 of the 8tatut8
have bemn ooaplled*iOh, it 8aem8 to us W
easily oould be datermlnedat any time whether
the rum'oialainsr8prewating ordinary ax-
pentseaof the ooontyamountadtm aa muoh as
It rsauonablyooulb ?m lxpaatsd ths ourrant
k&r.1. 2. Thoqmon, Sarah 3, 1939, Page 4 *
revenues of the county would mount to.
":-canit ~6s fount the$ did, it seems to uz1
it xicht have well been aaid that such ordin-
e;p erpnnsea of the aounty 88 *rem thers-
uttemartisincurredwere wltbln the prohiM.-
tion Of secticn 7 of ertfole 11 of the Con-
etltution.”
It will be noted tbat the above-quoted definl-
tion c::;'
"debt*, on well ae the atetementof the TOXIU-
kaae Court, appeared in opinlono prior to the eaaetaeat
or th8 Buagotstotuts. We ouuwt interpret the."emr~
olauaemof that statuteto oontrnveaethe ooastitatimal
B8MdO.
It 8hou.Mba kmrno in rind that the lb ia wall
eettledthat ooastltutloaalfund6 .M the ooaaty aanaot
b0 tpinero,rr0d rr4m on0 rtlnd t0 wxt.mr, aor M; tax m080y
rd80u-ofktoxibibi~ r0r -0 .pwpo~, b0 8xpd0d for uiahOrr
.&e OarrollV8. WilliaJu,109 Tex. 185, toe SW $04. QBL:
the &her band rtatatoryfar+ may bo traaarerrmdI&t.
1w; P. c. ~8.I ml0 apparent purpo8e of SootIon 8h of.
thm Badgot.&w abow-quoted..ir,toerideaoothe .$atoatioa
or the Lmgi8l&aroiot to 's.the rlgbtoofa~am-
rie8ioaer8'Uourtin treaatorrih6 stmt&~,-faa&8 fra
one mad to another.
You are, thererom, advia& lt 1s our opinl6m
the souatyau&et aennot be momled la an aaoun~axosad-
lng the lotlolpatedrev0nu.m in may pertioula~r$~4 80
aa to oreatea dobt rlthta the meaalrgof seotf6a'T
Art. 11 of the Conetltutioa,ualem 0 tax bo tot&b
pay mid debt; aad this fe true ru$a@le8a of the @x18-
toaoe or ubl%o aeoemlty and unferikmknoonditionai
We do Id the budgetmay be man4.d by tho Oommlaaloa-
la * Co ur t’
in a o o a r & a uor *
itb the p r mi8io a o or B o o tlo n
l2 (Vemaoa*a,Art. 669a-11)or tlm unfrorn Bud@t Aot
lr a debt a8 above derineb18 not oreatcrb,upon a fir&
ing by the Court, mxpporte4by the faot8, that ~@aemer-
genoy exietein auoordwtth'theprovisionof.,salQ 8eofl.m.
Vary truly poure
WRRALOFT