*1 right judicial of an order of demotion to a review herent procedure. duly proper after entered Commission Civil Service only providing legislature that The conferred benefit legis- doing and in demote so Commission Civil Service fixed the limit of the lature itself has benefit. City of Amarillo failed contention here that the
No is made procedure, proper in the case to follow administrative 167, McDonald, Ct., City Sup. 2d of The of Dallas v. S. W. rehearing pass on upon Texas 107 W. 2d 987. We do S. upon question of whether a failure procedure city prescribed in a de- to follow the Service Civil question subject court that motion is to attack in because necessary pass in this case not before us. Neither is it us grant legislature upon question of whether could legisla- appeal order, from demotion since the to the courts has ture not done so. Captain Hancock
The record shows that Clark has served Department City many years the Fire Amarillo Appeals and both the trial court and the Court of Civil found unjustly he had demoted. determined been Since we have jurisdiction the district court had no unneces becomes sary unjustly for us he to consider whether was demoted. Ac cordingly, judgment court and the district the Court Appeals are reversed and it is ordered that case jurisdiction. dismissed for want of Opinion March 1951. delivered Rehearing 13, 1951. overruled June Texas, ex rel J. H. Childress State Shelby et al. Trustees April 18, 1951.
No. A-2936. Decided Rehearing overruled June 1951. Series, (239 W., 777.) S. *3 Wilburn, Attorney, Emmett District Lane & Anderson and Anderson, J. R. Center, petitioners. all of for It was error for the lower courts to hold that the consoli- dated rural legally district was a created district; line rural authorized the statutes formation of said proper that was to annex the adjoining Joaquin Independent districts to the School District purpose creating County new district. Bd. of Gray, School 697; Trustees v. 142 Miller, S.W. 2d Henderson v. 501; 286 S.W. Cadenhead, State 743. S.W. Dudley Davis, Center, respondents. judgment Appeals the Court of Civil and the district court are every correct in particular, as the creation of con- High solidated Rural properly School was authorized amended, and that appointed trustees had full
authority to act. Dawn Common School County Board, Dist. v. Ind. Sch. v. Streeman Dist. 826; Ind. Sch. Fairfield S.W. Kirkland, 2d 443. 41 S.W. 651; Bell v. Dist., 222 S.W. opinion Court. delivered Mr. Justice Calvert Quo Warranto nature in the is an action This illegal an order of adjudged and void sought which it is to have Texas, County, Shelby County State Trustees School 1949, by Trustee undertook passed which said on October annexing to form or create a County, Shelby Fel- District No. 77 of Jackson Common School Shelby lowship District No. 74 School Consolidated Common County, Eagle District Line Common School Mill Joaquin Independent Shelby No. 36 of and Panola Counties Texas, Shelby County, and to name District 38 of School No. create, they thus undertook to “Central Con- district which High Shelby County, solidated Rural District No. 36 adjudged per- Texas.” The action also seeks to have it appointed by sons Trustees as trustees of district ing undertook which the aforesaid order to create are act- legal authority.
without agreed The case was submitted on an statement of facts. Judgment finding was rendered the trial court the defendants guilty, denying prayed for, all adjuding relief Central High Consolidated Rural County, Texas, Shelby School District No. 36 of legally created, to have been and the trustees judgment thereof to be lawful officers. The was affirmed Appeals. Court 2d 326. *4 stipulations of fact are set opinion out in full in Appeals. Only Court of bearing directly those facts on questions controversy in will be noticed here. Joaquin Independent School District popu- scholastic
lation of Fellowship more than Consolidated Common School District population with a scholastic of more than 250 and less than population and Jackson Common School District with a scholastic of less than were all wholly situated within Shelby County. Eagle County Mill Line Common School District population with a scolastic of less than 250 partly was situated Shelby County partly in and in County. Panola The area of the four districts square combined exceeded 100 miles. County With the consent of the School Trustees of Panola
County, County Shelby County School Trustees of ordered an 24, 1949, four September in each of the held on election to be the three common school to determine whether school districts County Shelby Board of annexed said districts “shall be Independent District No. 38 Joaquin School Trustees to Texas, county County, line rural school Shelby to form a 2922d, 2922a, 2922c, and of Articles under and virtue Texas, amended, purpose as for the Revised Civil Statutes pro- establishing operating schools within said and county district.” A substantial posed line Annexation”, voting at the election voted “For of those County County Shelby whereupon Trustees of entered complained order of. was entered the district Since order recognized by attempted created or to be has been thus created county line rural authorities as all school independent district. an and not as petitioners validity attack Before this Court of the order Shelby County grounds School Trustees of on three (1) follows: That Articles 2922c and 2922d do authorize the creation of rural school districts annex- (2) ation of one or more districts to another district. That in popu- no event a common school district with scholastic lation of more than 250 annexed an having population (3) a scholastic of 250 or more. That any event, authority School Trustees were without Joaquin Independent to take from School District its status independent district, change name, place its or to management appointed of its affairs in the hands of trustees by them.
Article 2922a reads in as follows: organized “Art. 2922a. state, In county each this any county organized, which shall hereafter be authority trustees shall have to form one or more rural districts, by grouping contiguous common school districts having less than (400) four population hundred scholastic having fifty less than two hundred (250) population, scholastic purpose establishing for the operating high schools; provided, also, trustees annex one or more common school districts or one or more having than less two *5 fifty (250) hundred population scholastic ato common school dis- having trict four (400) hundred population, or more scholastic to an having fifty (250) two hundred * * or more population scholastic *.”
243 first upheld under the cannot be The order here under attack forming county line rural part of Article 2922a as Independent Joaquin “grouping” because 250. excess of population School District had a scholastic Art. 2922a under validity If sustained of the order is part article which under that at all it must be sustained certain other the annexation of certain districts authorizes this fact proceedings show that districts. The referred to above recognized by was school authorities. dealing
That 2922a the annexation of school Art. subject opinions districts has been the of a number following appeals. the courts of civil In the cases it was held the article authorized boards of trustees enlarge a required nuclear school district with the scholastic population by annexing required to it other districts with the though population, present scholastic purpose there to be appeared County or intent to create a rural school district. Trustees, 697, Gray al., Board of School et al v. et 142 2d S.W. refused; Independent writ Terrell et al Dist. v. Clifton School al., 808, refused; 5 et 2d S.W. writ Henderson et al v. Miller al, 501, refused; 286 et S.W. writ Board of Dist. Trustees 49, County, Lanier Common School Dist. No. Cass et al v. Board County County, al, School Trustees of 232 2d Cass et S.W. 100, writ ref. n.r.e. following In the cases it was held or inferred that latter part of Art. 2922a authorized the creation of rural through process. County the annexation Board of School County, Wilson, al, Trustees of Limestone et al v. et 144, dism.; 15 County Angelina S.W. 2d writ Board School County, et al al, v. Homer Common School District et 191 S.W. 268, history; no writ Elliott Common School Dist. No. 48 et al County v. Board al, of School 786, Trustees et 76 2d S.W. writ dism.; ex State rel. al, Lowe et al v. Cadenhead et 2d 129 S.W. 743, County writ refused! Board of School Trustees of Hale County Mayfield et al v. Common al, Dist. No. 22 140 956, 2d judgm.; S.W. writ dism. correct Live Oak Board of School Trustees et al v. Whitsett Common School Dist. et al 181 refused; S.W. 2d writ Dawn Common School Dist. No. 2 et al v. School Board of School Trustees of Deaf County, Smith refused; 2d S.W. et al Weaver Board of Dist., Trustees of Ind. Wilson 2d S.W. 864, writ merit, refused want of 143 Texas 2d S.W. 221; Fairfield Ind. School Dist. et al v. Streetman Ind School al, Dist. et 651. *6 reading opinion by manifest a The confusion is made Independent Trinity Appeals
of in the case of the of Civil Court County, al, Trinity Trustees, Dist. Dist. v. School District error, a writ of this Court refused in which approval 689, thereby on what placing stamp 134 Texas its of 2922a place opinion was it said: “Art. said. At one was authority provides have that the school trustees shall contiguous by grouping to com- rm'al school districts form by annexing dis- mon an school districts or annexing a by trict to or more one common school * * common school districts to an opinion Later in the record shows that it is said: “While the there been consolidations annexations of school dis- have Trinity Independent District, tricts the ex- with under press of Art. and consolidations terms 2922b those annexations Independent changed Trinity have not the status District to school district a from * * Adverting petitioners’ point. now to far we have first So precise been able to discover this is first which case in question presented. here squarely raised has been matter As a of fact squarely presented by petitioners was not to the Court Appeals, accounts, of Civil doubt, whióh for the failure of pass that doubt, court to however, discuss or on it. We have no petitioners’ right right ques to raise it here and that is not by respondents. tioned appears It to us it could obvious that by legislature not have been part intended the latter dealing of Art. power 2922a annex should have the purpose authorizing double tricts enlargement dis nuclear the annexation thereof other districts as held group cited, authorizing of cases first above and of creation school districts the annexation of of certain classification, classification to other districts of certain group as held in the of cases last above cited. It becomes neces sary, therefore, purposes to determine which of in those was legislature. tended
It seems clear analysis from Chapter us a careful 19A of Title 49 of our part statutes that the latter of Art. 2922a legislature provide did intend second method of forming only pro- school districts but intended providing stronger vide second method of for better and schools. reading
Even casual of Article will 2922a show legislature provide expressly for the creation of rural did not con- The first article annexation. authority “to feres on school trustees boards form *7 * * *” high by grouping more cer- one or Then article con- tain districts of certain classifications. * * *” “Provided, also, : board annex tinues that districts of certain to other districts of certain classifications legislature authority classification. If had intended that given carry power to annex school districts should also the create a rural school district annexation it would have simple simple been matter said to have so. It would have been “Provided, proviso matter to have written the in this fashion: also, board a rural school dis- form by annexing trict etc.” This it did not do and can we find no authority reading language for into the article when the legislature may refused, good reason, have with to write it therein. through 29221, Articles 2922a minor amendments added, were all sections of House Bill 38 enacted the 39th Legislature in interpreted 1925 and all should be read and so as
present a Lacy Banking harmonious whole. et al v. State Board al, (Com. Texas App.), 39 Tex. Throughout Jur. a sec. 113. the various Act sections of the high recognized distinction is between a rural school district independent and an enlarged or through common school district the annexation of other districts. Article part 2922b reads as follows: “Rural school provided districts as preceding article shall be classed * * as common *; provided independent districts that all enlarged by districts the annexation thereto one or
more common provided school districts as in Article 2922a and, shall retain its independent status name as an school dis- trict, and operate independent shall continue to as an * * legislature If the had intended that enlarged by districts the annexation of other districts should become rural reason perceive good districts we can of no why legislature Article 2922b was careful recognize something their status as other than a rural school district. The first provision of Article 2922f makes for the elementary discontinuance of schools in rural districts paragraph and the last pro- same article makes vision for the elementary discontinuance of schools in a com- mon school district or enlarged an legislature annexation. If type intended the latter enlarged by annexation —should be district —that
of school thing did a and futile then it foolish not paragraph of the article. We should last added the when it legislature of articles so as to convict interpret the series action. and futile of foolish part, follows: reads as 2922h elementary any districts included within
“In the event common school districts an- district or the a rural independent district, common school or the a common or nexed to which one or more common school or outstanding for, annexed, provided have are herein indebtedness, for that then at election valid other bonded authorities, designated date, proper purpose, at a to be Law, question provided by as to whether or General *8 district, district, high or rural common school said the may be, school district as case shall assume and the outstanding pay other indebtedness and off such bonds or may a levied therefor submitted to the whether tax shall be be taxpaying high school, qualified of common or inde- voters such pendent If the district. a of votes cast at such assumption the of such election favor indebtedness then such subsisting obligations valid and indebtedness shall become of high district, district, said rural common school or the * * independent district; again legislature recognized clearly Here the a distinction between a rural school district and a common inde- or enlarged through pendent school district annexations. by legisla- further evidence of As the distinction made the ture, language we call attention to the of Article 29221. After making provision levying for the of taxes in rural districts the article continues: “Provided that taxes the local previously by a authorized district or districts included in a school district or annexed to common or provided herein, shall be continued force until provided such time as a uniform tax be for the benefit of the rural school district or said common or inde- pendent enlarged by district as the annexation the said com- mon school districts thereto.” It authority follows from what has been said that the county by boards to create rural annex- only support not express wording ation fails to find in the legislature’s contrary directly also to it is 2922a but express by its evidenced article as own construction chapter succeeding articles throughout recognition enlarged by an- independent school common or that a district. a"rural not in fact nexation is by Courts many decided later cases In of the form authority board Appeals which in assumed or by is either annexation opinion court’s recognized, ferentially reliance is had on al, 129 al v. Cadenhead ex rel Lowe et in the case of State court case the that ref. It true that is S.W. high school positive that statement makes the direct by but annexation under Article 2922a formed opinion court of the pure dictum. The the statement obiter high school create the rural effort to not whether the does show opinion by by “grouping” “annexation”. or district was simply Be the other. says one method or it was create the may, authority board that as it questioned annexation was opinion reflects court case. The decided in the Cadenhead only ques agreed by parties sole and “that it was whether the enactment the court” was tion to be determined repealing in 1935 had the effect or Article V.A.C.S. only question This was the before Article 2922c V.A.C.S. ques only decided. the courts have a court one When they presented first have for decision time tion them regarded Boswell themselves as bound obiter dictum. never 593, 597; Pannel, 433, 180 et al v. 107 Texas S.W. Wells Assn., (Com. App.). Reciprocal 2d 346 Lumbermen’s *9 great many fallacy underlies a of the Court of which distinguish Appeals’ opinions is the failure to between schools, and, particularly, failure school districts and more high distinguish rural districts and rural school between interchange high Many opinions schools. of the use the terms though they synonomous. ably and as were School districts high schools, schools, high rural or rural districts and school thing. high like all same Rural school districts are not at independent and school districts other common school districts high high quasi-municipal corporations; like rural schools are are and school districts in other common schools agencies school dis of the instruments or used one but corporate accomplish purpose of existence. Other trict to its agencies district are instruments or elementary used the school high operates and schools schools maintains. While high cetrainly high will almost be rural in rural school districts schools, high school districts in common and schools high certainly lying just rural schools. as rural areas will high dis- deal alone with rural school Article 2922a does not “provision to make for a purpose of article was tricts. The system in the counties of state” schools various this better and to whereby legislature remedy considered a situation high system wholly in- “our rural and rural school words, adequate”. purpose article In other it was not the of the high to deal alone with the creation of rural school districts strengthen contrary purpose im- on the it was its but Through language prove generally. rural Article schools legislature provided accomplishing 2922a the two methods of purpose: (1) by this through of rural school districts the creation strengthening “grouping” (2) by existing com- through mon and “annexation” other districts thereto. Respondents not contend that if 2922a does even Article through authorize the creation process, authority may annexation such be found in Articles agree. 2922c and 2922d. this With contention we do Article 2922c as reads follows: herein, “No provided shall greater
contain miles, a area more square than one hundred elementary county than ten districts, except school districts, board of school trustees form rural provided 2922a, containing than in Article more square miles, one upon hundred majority a vote of a qualified proposed electors the said voting at an purpose; provided election called for such further, said board of school trustees form a rural containing ten more than elementary upon qualified vote of voters in elementary each of proposed districts within such school district.” This purport article does not to confer on boards of power trustees to create rural school districts. It is but limitation power on the first conferred under the part of exceptions Bell et al the limitation. *10 al, v. Ditmore et 2d 397.
Article 2922d reads as follows: adjoining county coun- two or more “The of trustees of board authority, upon written order of a ma- ties shall have jority concerned, county to estab- of each board of the members designate high county lish line rural to supervision county county line which have of said shall high high county line rural school district. Said governed as other rural district shall be provided herein for.”
This article like all to herein was a the others referred 38, appearing of H.B. thereof. It must be read Section interpreted light possible har- in the of and far as so mony with the other sections of In Article 2922a the bill. legislature types was careful of school define the or classes might grouped districts be form a district. No district can be included in such a district unless contiguous it is other be which is to grouped. No common school district can included in such population unless it has a scholastic of less than school district can be un- included therein less it population. has less than By 250 scholastic the terms of power granted Article 2922c even the in Article 2922a is limited so that a rural district cannot be created with area of more square than one except hundred miles consent of a proposed of the voters given at an purpose election held for that and so that such a dis- trict cannot be created elementary with more than ten dis- except upon tricts a majority quali- favorable vote of fied voters in each of elementary proposed districts of the pointed district. petitioners, As is out give Article 2922d the by respondents construction contended for place would in the county hands of boards of school trustees such power they unlimited could, even without the consent of voters, combine all the school districts of whatever character and county population scholastic gigantic of two counties into one line rural school district. It is unthinkable that separate legislature sections of the same Act the intended to drastically power limit so county boards of school trus- tees to create rural county school districts in one and to confer such power unlimited and unrestricted to create line rural districts on the board of trustees adjoining counties. reading It is obvious from a Act legislature as a whole that did not intend to confer on county boards of school trustees unlimited and unrestricted power to create rural school districts. In order to harmonize Article 2922d with the remainder of the Act so that the same' *11 obvious and thwart the an unreasonable result
will not lead to legislative county of intent, power of boards the we hold that county line rural school create trustees to and 2922c. provisions 2922a is limited of Articles the re agree proposition. To petitioners’ do not second We power it, county has no state under that board trustees is of school part annex a common Article 2922a to latter a com 250 to population district in excess of with a scholastic population 400 more mon or school district with a scholastic independent population or to an district with a scholastic more; limiting “having or hundred phrase two that the less than fifty (250) population” more “one or scholastic modifies both common school districts” and “one or more fully districts”. and answered This contention was examined strictly grammatical standpoint by from a Appeals. of Civil Court history clearly supports
The the result Act by. originally reached Appeals. enacted Court of As part also, “Provided, that of Article 2922a reads follows: as county that annex more common board one or having districts to a common hundred or school district four having population more scholastic or an district to * * fifty population one hundred and or more scholastic There was no limit on size districts that of common school might By Regular passage be annexed. of House Bill 89 the Legislature, 1927, Session of the 40th amended Article 2922a changed as so as under read examination was “provided follows: also that school trustees annex one or inde more common school districts or one or more pendent fifty having schol districts less than two hundred and population having scholastic four common school district population hundred or more an scholastic or to having fifty popu two hundred and or more scholastic * * language lation The shown in italics was added nothing amendment. There amendment indicate alter, change phraseology the added intended was power existing limit the then to annex common school districts. disposes question What has been said on the the third first question. express provisions inde Under the Article 2922b an pendent enlarged the annexation to it of com mon pendent inde and name an districts retains “its status operate an inde district” and continues “to pendent Any trus district”. action of board taking changing enlarged tees name of such management of the control the school affairs thereof, contrary duly elected trustees out of the hands statute, express is void. to the terms Shelby Trustees of order of the passed 1, 1949, purporting Con- on to create “Central October Shelby County High *12 solidated Rural Texas”, District No. 36 void, appointed is and those trustees of said acting legal authority. follows said order are such without It judgments Appeals and the dis- of the Court of Civil judgment trict court are and above reversed is here rendered as indicated.
Opinion April 18, delivered 1951. Griffin, joined by Mr. Justice Justices Brewster and Garwood, dissenting. following
I majority opinion wrong believe is for the reasons:
Chapter 19A, containing 2922d, Articles 2922c and Statutes, Vernon’s originally passed was in 1925 Legislature, 39th purpose “making provision and .for system a better of schools in the various counties of this State” remedy and whereby Legislature to a situation considered “our rural adequate.” system wholly school and rural in- is part The first provides of Article 2922a for the creation rural by grouping certain named schools. dealing is Next a section with the annexation of certain school districts. “grouping” This section follows the section and is a part sentence, being preceded the same by a semicolon. Such section also,” “provided uphold starts with the words etc. To petitioners’ contention that a rural school district not annexation, be formed method of we must that the hold “provided having also” and the clause do to with the annexation another, of one entirely to covers an different subject subject than the of rural in schools as is discussed the first of Article 2922a. To so hold would to make be such bring second section unconstitutional and void and it within prohibition III, 35, Constitution, of Article Section Texas that a bill subject. must not contain more than one On the other hand, “provided conjunction hold that also” is a (as means and “in Employers’ “besides” or Assn. v. addition to” held in Texas Ins. Perry, App., cit., Tex. Civ. 35 2d loc. middle S.W. col., p. 1089, refused), 1st providing for another forming possessing plan a method or some of characteristics of an give validity purpose constitutionality to the act Legislature the use passing the law. As to had mind in in legislation conjunction, “provided” a the authorities in see Ed., Phrases, pp. seq.; Rae v. cited Per. Words p. Baker, (5), App., loc. cit. Tex. Civ. writ refused. holding majority attempts by drawing justify
The their a distinction between school district and relevancy, substance, school. I do see determining validity dis- such distinction trict suit. reason this as an additional offers holding there can no creation of school dis- by annexation, providing trict are no words there such “provided By action in the also” “annexation” same clause. authorizing token there are no a rural words the creation of high school, and, according majority’s reasoning, *13 to the no rural high may by school be created annexation. Another effect majority opinion deny of benefits is to high of the rural school act to more common school districts of than 400 population scolastic school districts of more than 250. To hold another the “annexation” clause creating high district, means of a rural is avail- school to make able rural school districts common and to both school districts of all Act in classifications. title to The supports given nowise by the construction Act the ma- jority opinion. majority opinion, Under the no rural having district can be created of an the attributes only having but a com- those the attributes of mon school district. regard having
I by many been of settled decisions Appeals Court re- Civil in which writs of error have been by refused high this court for a rural years, more than fifteen Although be annexation. formed there has been exact no case this out this court which reasons point, many applications there have writs been refusals of districts, involving validity of error in cases created such holding. only which can approved mean that has this court such every question upheld The act has been as constitutional Miller, attacked, beginning time it been has with Henderson v. App., 501, refused, Tex. Civ. least as writ down at S.W. on Mayfield D. No. C. S. Trustees late 22, Board Sch. 956, dismissed-correct writ App., 140 2d S.W. Tex. Civ. judgment. of a In the case the formation last cited being involved, aside a suit to set annexation was create a Trustees to
an order of Board of annexation, and the formation Ap such sustained. Amarillo Court of Civil district was authority peals Legislature said: “The constitutional case grant powers (to such create rural longer open ques districts) to the is board (citing ; col., authorities) cit., (1-3), p. tion” numerous loc. 1st 960. (1939),
In the Tex. case State ex rel Lowe v. Cadenhead App., refused, quo proceeding Civ. brought seeking warranto was creation to invalidate the High opinion Weinert Rural states No. 50. The District that such rural of an “exists as the result attempted grouping of a of common school districts number with, or annexation same Independent Consoli- Weinert * * * * * * dated School District at an election held Oct. resulting proposition in favor authorize grouping or annexation of said opinion discusses districts.” The distinguished formation school districts as from that, Chapter consolidation of districts and states under 19A, Title seq., Articles 2922a et Vernon’s Statutes. Ann., different formed six methods, Among circumstances. combination of there the six specifically provided annexing “(e) by common one or more *14 having an districts 250 district population.” more ques- scholastic case has been This never by any case, tioned accepted pronounce- later but has as a been regard ment of the law with to formation and characteristics of cases, rural school districts. In addition to the the above following approve cases the formation of school districts annexation Dist., Article under 2922a: Lee v. Leonard Ind. Sch. App., Tex. 449, refused; Civ. 24 S.W. 2d writ Terrell v. Clifton Dist., Ind. App., 808, refused; Sch. Tex. Civ. 5 2d writ S.W. Trinity Independent 24, Trustees, School Dist. v. District Dist. Trinity County, App., 1021, refused; Tex. Civ. 135 S.W. 2d writ Live Dist., County Oak Board of v. Trustees Whitsett Common School al, App., 847, refused, (dis- Tex. Civ. 181 2d writ S.W. trict held elementary invalid because it had more than seven and ; districts) election failed in three Dawn
254 County School Dist. 2 v. Board of
Common No. School School County, App., Trustees of Deaf 205 2d Smith Tex. Civ. S.W. 826, refused; writ No. 48 v. Dist. Elliott Common School 786, County Trustees, App., Board Tex. 76 S.W. of School Civ. dismissed; Independent v. writ Dist. Street- Fairfield School Independent 2d Dist., App., man S.W. School Tex. Civ. 651, history; Lanier Trustees of Com- writ Board of Dist. County 49, mon Board School School Dist. No. v. of Cass 100, 2d re- County, App., 232 Trustees of Tex. Civ. S.W. Cass Limestone fused; N.R.E.; County Trustees of Board of School 144, dismissed. County Wilson, App., 2d writ Tex. Civ. S.W. Dist., Ind. In School Weaver v. Board of Trustees Wilson merit, refused, App., want Tex. Civ. 2d S.W. made on attack was 143 Texas an Independent Dis- validity Morgan annexation over- The court Independent District. trict to Wilson ruled the attack held that valid prior to annexation, an election had been either formed Trustees, byor consent the order of the Board of School says: component court of the trustees of the two districts. appears proceedings for ‘It annex- from record that 19A, governed provisions Chapter Article ation were An- seq., 2922a et which 8 of Vernon’s are set out in Volume Statutes, notated Civil and deal with the establishment provides their control of schools. cer- by grouping establishment school trustees another, tain districts or the annexation one district speci- where the districts fall within the classifications involved annexing Among fied in the classifications article. having an fifty ing hundred less two school district than population hav-
scholastic fifty population. Article two hundred or more scholastic provides 2922c event school district in the greater to be formed square area than one hundred shall contain by a vote of miles its formation must be authorized qualified proposed electors in voting purpose. The at an called for such election record discloses that at the time the school board entered annexing Morgan its order the Wilson fifty, district contained than two hundred Wilson more Morgan fifty, district contained less than two hundred *15 stated, population. silent scholastic extent of As the record is on the Morgan the combined area of the districts.” Wilson (Emphasis added.)
255 Weaver, Texas Independent Dist. v. School In Wilson through Jus- court, speaking Chief 187 S.W. 2d this says: matter, Alexander, practice and then “We tice discussed a Ap- carefully opinion of Civil of the Court have peals considered judgment merits, correct concluded that on the and have application of error there- writ is rendered therein. was merit.” fore refused for want of Independent Trinity Dist. v. District Petitioners cite
Trustees, supra, County Gray, Trustees v. Board of School refused, authority App., Tex. Civ. by may that a rural not be created annexa- district Yet, case, Trinity Independent in tion. District p. 1023, col., top S.W. 2d at trustees, 1st the court states that the 2922a, under Article school dis- create by grouping, tricts annexation. Gray case, supra, although says
In the the court brief Gray, evidently has been action furnished of the trial granting against court in injunction the formation of the sought by annexation was based on the construction of 19A, Chapter authorizing seq., Articles “as the forma- only high schools, and, tion particular, as not au- thorizing the annexation aof common school district to an inde- pendent County action Board with the consent of injunction the trustees of the district affected.” The was dis- solved and valid, disapproving the district created held thus reasoning Gray, sustaining court the trial and of annexation.
Much of peti- confusion the decision claimed is a distinguish tioners result of the failure to between the kinds of rural Legislature school districts. The intended to au- thorize rural school districts to created which have the characteristics of a common school or of an inde- pendent reasoning Judge school district. The Sanford in the County case of Board of School Trustees of Limestone Wilson, App., 144, dismissed, Tex. Civ. S.W. 2d and found page on (3,4) correctly 146 and 147 sets forth intention of Legislature passing Chapter 19A and its amendments. 2922c, providing This further is shown reference to Article for an election to create rural school districts in certain regard instances. provision Unless the 2922a with brings annexations district, about creation required in
then no election is annexations other, and the left free to each Board *16 elementary areas, regard number of to without districts annex districts, proposed district. of the residents wishes of the or the the clearly that Chapter shows reading 19A the whole A intention. Legislature had no such not is holding an annexation majority that the The district, is no there
a a because creation of follows a result such express provision 2922a that in Article inapplicable an- to annexation, Article 2922c renders from is no- “annexation” nexations, word for the reason that necessarily if follow must 2922c. This where used Article a means reasoning majority “annexation” is that of the high schools, not a creating high but or even rural schools creating 2922c district. Article a rural means of provides provided district, herein for “No rural * * may *except county trustees board of school that high districts, provided in Article 2922a form ** * * *; pro- proposed rural *in said * * * * * * further, a vided form rural (Emphasis proposed school district.” within such added.) apply correct, majority If is Article 2922c does gives the annexations under 2922a Article 2922a. Article annexing the districts Board of a hand in School Trustees free anyone, get They nor
therein the consent of described. need not applies. any whatsoever, Nor hold election unless 2922c any par- required majority affected in is it that a of the voters proposal. I do not ticular must vote in favor of such Legislature permit such action believe that the ever intended to Trustees, part on and leave Board helpless proposed avoid the voters resident in the districts applies such I annexations result. think Article 2922c county opinion, majority limits the board. Under whatsoever, board, any by annexations and without election any county can into one combine all the school districts of large majority says in Article 2922a the district. also Legislature types was careful to define the or classes of school might grouped form a rural school dis- a it is trict. No district can be included in such district unless contiguous grouped. to the other districts with which it is to be By reasoning annexed need not be same districts to be contiguous other, one to each be in southwest but part and the in the other northeast county, requirement “annexation” for there in the assigned proviso contiguity, reasons and this is one of the holding “annexation” does not create keep If school district. we will mind difference government and administration common school and of an remember that also Legislature wanted to all rural schools and rural benefit *17 sections, Chapter provisions then all 19A became consistent They and reasonable. enable an school district any become a rural former school district without loss of its rights administration; and freedom of and at the same time permit advantage good common school districts to have the through losing rural identity, schools annexation without their they done if should consolidate with inde- pendent seq., school district under Article 2806 et be at- tached under Article 2742f. reading that,
A conclusively cases cited shows since passage by of the Act in it has considered been courts, vast and the school authorities Texas, provision forming State of that the districts Particularly annexation of certain and refused, supra, districts is has been valid. Cadenhead,
since State v. relied, any authorities and courts have without serious question, upon powers belong therein stated board of school trustees to form rural schools Legislature passed annexation. validating The has numerous acts boards, prac- school as created and in tically along all groupings. acts have validated annexations I therefore would hold the act of the Board of School Trustees, creating the rural annexa- tion, to be valid. agree I majority opinion with the petitioners’ second proposition overruled, should be and with the reasons there given.
By specific 2922b, direction latter of Article district created has all the status of an dis- trict and Joaquin Independent must retain name District, Shelby County, No. 38 of nuclear as that is the independent school to which the common school districts . were annexed. appointing School Board erred in Board of Trustees, and the trustees should from be elected .the voters enlarged district, provided by and other 2922e laws
applicable dis- to election of trustees in an trict.
Opinion April delivered 1951. joined dis- Brewster and in this Associate Justice Garwood sent.
Rehearing overruled June 1951. of Texas Board of Commissioners Insurance Company al) (Houston Trust Bank & Company et al. Life Insurance Southern Great Decided 2, 1951. A-2886. May No.
Rehearing 13, 1951. overruled June (239 803.) 2dW., Series, S.