Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-7344 Page: 4 of 6
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
IHonorble C. D. Stamona, Pag 4
"Appellant prosonts four points of error, but
in its brie oonoedes that 'The only question in
this casoe is whether the Tarrant County Road and
Bridge Funding Bonds, dated November 1, 1922, is-
sued by said count under authority of Article 657,
Chapter 3, Title 8,I Revised Statutes of 1911, are
subject to redemption *at the pleasure of the
county."' The appellant, plaintiff below, contends
that said bonds are not redeemable, and sppolle ,
defendant below, insists that they are redemoble."
Vith respect to this question, the court held the follow-
"The 1912 issue wars for road and bridge purposes,
authorized by A Article 610, 1911 Statutes. Article
611, some Statute, provides, among other things, for
the redemption ct those bonds by the county at its
pleasure within certain limitations.
"Article 657, 1911 Statutes, previously quoted,
begins vith the expression, 'Where bonds have been
legally issued.' As pointed out above, these bonds
vere legally issued in 1912. The article continues,
'or may be hereafter issued, by any county fo any
of the purposes named in Article 610, new bonds *''
may be issued in confority with existing law in lieu
of the former ones. By virtue of this statutory pro.
vision the 1922 bonds in controversy were issued in
lieu of those under date of 1912.
"It is fundamentally tru that sin the debt
evidenced by the 1912 issue eas still unpaid and
oving by the appellee a renewal of that obligation
by putting another one of its obligations or promises
to pfay 'in It1' thereof, meaning instead of its
first obligation or evidence of its debt, did not
create a new debt oving by appellee to appellant,
but it remained the sane debt incurred for money
with which to build and maintain roads and bridges.
This debt vas orested by the issuance of the 1912
bonds, which vs a purpose authorized by Artiole
610, 1911 Statutes. As we viewo it thst debt will
continue to be one iurred for the authorised
purpose until it is paid, Lrrspotive of the num-
ber of times the oppelle renews it by funding or
refunding bonds yhiAh represent the same debt. Del-
las County v. Lookhart, Treasurer, (sup.) 96 . V.
2d 60 (63).
"***Bearing in sind thet appellee's debt, as in-
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-7344, text, August 22, 1946; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth264621/m1/4/: accessed November 15, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.