Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF
TEE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUSTIN.TEXAS
Honorable Joe P. Rlaok
Qounty Attorney
"II= ";Z: , L
Dear Slrr
Opinion No. O-5462 Rez Dlspositlon of money amI proper~p of d4strlota upon fornatlm rural high sob01 distzlot.
We have reoofved your letter of July 19, 1943, whloh we quote in part a8 tollowsr
“The Gounty Judge of Menard Oounty, has a&- eU me an opinion BEI to the following mtter.
I have advised h5.m In answer to said question, but a8 usual, he thinka thst he'should have an opinion from your Department.
*On June 19, 1943, an election waa held and was carried anuerlng oertain oommn aohool &la- trlote wlth the lWmrdrille independent Sahool Dletriot or oonaolidatlng said distrlots under the Rural Iii& School Act.
Vlome of these sohool distrlota have money on hand and own property, the question ie: what 1s to beoome of eald aroperty and rooaey? That is, said dlatrlots have looal tax money on hand and own busses and other property, but as 1 under- stand they have no banded indebtedners and the question la, as state6 ebove:, whet should be %ane with thl6 property?*
,317 Eon. Jo. P. Flask, pade 2
Wa do not hare bsfore ua the quastlon of tha o#tablf& msnt of the aalarged Uf8trlot, snd for tha purpoaea of thj,a opinion, W aPStUES tb sadbe MS 1S@dly eatnbllshad. Our aa&wer till, tharafere ba oonii5ad to the quaatlon of t&a proper dloposltlon of ihe fu5da v5d property Of tha Individual Ogt;;ttEV350hry dkZitdOt UpOn ths ,: :fOI25EtifM ‘Of the Oa2gOh ah-
.
Artiimi 2922a, vsrnon'll &ADRtmteii Clril 8ta0otea, rrrta forth the prooedure wherabp a rural hl&h oohwJ,4lstriet w br roradl. !&a a&hod nhatoby such a df8triot aay'be eboliahod la also girtlo. Buoh aethod la aa followar "* * + ~erldad tha eouaty aah&
tru8teer.shall hawe the autkumlty to aboUah a ruml high aoboti dlotrlot on a petltien or tha *btcrrs of eaoh ' ilgneil by a majority alamantary dirtriot ~onipo~ the rural high school dlstrlot and whan euoh district haa
baan absllshad the elasmntar~ districta shall automatioally rsoact baok to their arfgiaal etattls, *.ith the ez0egtian~that in the otont there a?3 tiny OUtEkDding inde~tOdne~@ k?k&atnst the 8ald rural aohoel Ulatrlot eash ela~~aatary dlstriot ahall l aaum its porportlonal part OS the dabts."
%han aahool dS8triota are oonaoltdatad.tmdsr A&201@ Qiril Miatota8, the~diatriota oonaoll- 2806, Var5on~*~Anrmtati&l dated lose thair'saparata ldentlty. Bowever tha fomation of a rural high school dlatrlot doss riot abolia6 the olamntary a5d aeparats.elanreatary soh~oJ.8 mst be maintained bishrlots, theraln. Artiole 2922f Chaatain v. Waul&ln, 32 S, Wi (2&j 2371 MoPhall v, Tax Co 9 eotor or Van Zadlt~Oounty, SO S, A.
2603 Qounty Roam3 or sohool Trusteea of Ligsstons Oounty V. Wilson, 9.8, W. (2d) 805 Opinion No. O-308$. AntI under Artl- 01s 2922~ upon the abol f tlon or the rural hi&& aoheel dlatriot, the eLomenta,ry distriota return to thalr original atatun.
Honr.Joe P. l”bok, we )
In the oaae of ChmtaI~ v. ?dauldln, supra, 't&q eaart bad before it ths gueetion rbAlth6r, the truateee of a roral. high sc~ol dlstriot oould rccnove sohoalhmm or en ele- mentary district to another Qletrtota 'So quote the foXle Sraa the oainfon sf the eouxtt
* * * * In tiie MaPhall Case above, Judge Loaney in holding oonstltatloha~ the prorialona of ahepter 19a, title 49, e&8 forth very clear- purpoeee and offee+ of the le,@slcitloa. As there potnted out, ereupine
doea not have the afSe&of abd.h sohooln in the distriot, $h~e*aboll8hhfng the ssrexel diotriat bmtbs, ate trulte.l or the grouped Qietrfot were itweated with
parrer and oherged with thhs.dut Of coadudtiag aahools and of abl.nlaterin@ a f aoho81 property and fund8 rd 6.U the dlstriota wlth3.n the baun-
have the ~wer of the, Panther creek to removo the eohool distrlot to the Sroavenor dietriot, a6 that would have been a dioeroion of the property from It8 proper purpoee an& object, The on3.0 eonsoXidatIon Tunbi a,el- a.ff%oted by the ~rou&xg wu 'leoted fron taxation gsneraZ fualnCfmwmr The
ownership schml build~Iu@ of the several die- trlota rmalned thir propertg or those dlstriete end oould tat be divested or Intpatra& by the-true- teea of the mouped dietriot. %I believe and 80 hold that In at;teqMn.$ to X$ROQ~ the %CrhQOl bull& im3 the trustees were c&out ti3 p43rtomn a wbri;lly unauthorized aat."
%a. Joe P. FlRok, page 4
Upon the dlsnolakion of a rural h&h soho& distriali, ao to propiwty r oartald questions tight be ralud or the varloua aletriots if the money aad preparty ari belong&g to the lndlvidusl dlstriots had bean used in 0th~ dlstrlats or-in the edlerged dfatriat. Evidently~under the Pauldin ease, and you are so a&
vised, upon the roneetlon of s rural.high sahool dirtriot, the trustees or aaid dbtrlat my uwthe rUnas and zaparty or an ‘tlameatary dietriot only fdr beaetlt of said eleeeatary dlstriot.
Eowever, we call~your attention to that rt the opinion aourt.in the Mauldin ease whioh rea r aa fellmat sr goupea
a * * * Tha trurtees Biatrlot have themamqamaat and control the bulld&g in'puestlcm, and we do not hold they are without a,uthorltg under proper safeguards 1161: it8 return or replilomnaat te remve It p-mpolr- rily to the Brenrenor 4lrrtrio0, TtUt Quertioa, 2, -however, is hot presantaU by &ha pleading or ;- proof before ah I The oas+ a8 aado by the moor4 preaanta only the puestion or Ihe poaior or
/. Groirenor trusteea Lo ooavsto the aohool. bulldb ?’ or the Panther Crbrk &+rlOl.w
1.
We~bsllsre that~uadar t&la laaguags It my by bua- !: mw aad other property of’ the elfmeatary di6trlot uhieh 18 mw- .< oeptibls .or Iming used DV~P. tho 3nlarged tietrlot nay ba LO i$ used lr proper saf%gt~~Ie are takait t0 preasrva and p%WWt the ’ .I .progf&iy OS ths elmentaiy iU&riot. rights ii ,~. Yourn very truly, p: G53Wl?AL OB TEZAl3 A”PROVXD JtZY 31, 1943 ATTOm (slgnsd) Waver Seller8
opiaba hmaittee %r