Case Information
*1 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
H&mrableJ.B.Parten
Ime Board of Regents of the
mllven3lt.y of Texas
P. 0. Box 1403
Houston, Texas opinion NO; 0-2106
Deer sir:
Be: (a) Uhether or not a oontrac- tual relation exists between the Onlveralty of Texas aud * etudent.
(b) If contractual reldtlomhlp exiata, oan the partlea alter maid oontraot?
We have forreply m letter ofMrrroh 20,1940,dealrlng to. kuow whether or not b. ce&raotnalrelatlonahlp exists between a etudent +nd theVnireraltyof%xm under the f&tie eetforth tim letter. In order thattheee faotamayappear in this opinlonas youhave stated t&m, we quote Avlmyour letter; '.
"TheBoard of Regenta hae tmder ocnslderatlcm enappeal by a fonuer student fran the aotlon of the.adminYatratlve officials in denyinghtiadmadmisslan to the Collage ofArta and Solewes at the Undverelty of Texas lnSeptembeF, 1939. *TheWlvemlty ofTexas publiahea and dlatrlbntas catalogue6 or bulletins. Cataloguea are made available to studenta aud to prospective atudenta as wellae the parents Of said atadentX~.
"Acaordwly aoatalogue orbulletlnwas publlkhed aud dletrltited entltled 'The Unlverslty of Texas Bulle- tin, Ho. 3717 -- MsJr 1, 1937. catalogue Ho. Part VII College of Arta and Sciences aud School of Eduoatlon.* The pravislona ofealdcatalogzze oover the eaholaatio yeara 1938-1939 and 1937-1938, respeatlvely. The provl- elcna of said oatalogaes in respect to the queetlans here Involved far each of said aoholastlo years are the sane. "Op the Inside topoover appeara aoapltallmdhead- lngwhiohreads: *OEBERALPnaPaSEaFmCm.' Under t&is headingthe followingparagrapb appear81 The ' Catalogue contains t3.w offiaialregulatlolrs for the next *2 Honorable J. R. Parten,Page 2 (o-2106)
two ye-. Rxaept as to degree reqnlremente, these regala- tlone - not valid bemd that t&w.'
?Mer aoapltallzedheadlngseveralpagea later, GRAD- UATION UNDER A %UITICUUR CATAXGIlE, appears: 'A Student flrettlme or in a later year ln reglsterfngelthezfor’the the College of Arts aiulSolenoeemayobtalu a degree in the College'of Arte end Solenoes according to the requirermente of the aatalogue then ln force. . . .,Allof the above proylslon~, however, are subject to the reetrlctlon that allthe requirements for adegree ln thecollege of Arts and Solenoes must be camplated within six yeare of the date of the catabgue chosen: (p. 28)
"Under the capitalized headlng~'STARDARD OF WORKRE- QXEVRED' (p. 23) is the aub-aapltalleed heading %EQKDED ltlmpm. ' *To avoid special observation, fiaal trial, or beingdropped Ann the rolls of theIJnl~erslty,the student mu&meet the followins etandardpf work.' . . . . (p. 24)
"The pro~lelona of the catalogues in regard to the ?(equired Minimam of Work' appearing at pages 23 and 25 here under consideration. The Pro~lslo~ of s&id aatalogue irregard to the gequlremente for ti~Degree' ~appearlng at pages td 29~ lnalual~e,~have not~been ahanged and'- atill construed to be applloable to the student.
"The~student in queatlcm entered the College of Art~ &d Sciences at Tile University of Texas lu September, 1937, uuder the terms and oonditione of the above oatalogue or bulletin for the soholaetlc years 1937-38 and 1938-39.
"Dura the session of 1937-1938 the student met the scholastla tiqulremente aontalned in said oatalogne or bulletin, and there la no issue or question ia regard to hieEholaatla quallflcatlons for this sesalon.
"On June 25, 1938, after the publlaation and dletrl- butlon of the aforeeaid catalogue or bulletin, the Board of Regenta of the'Vniverslty of Texas, acting upon the reaamuendatlona of the Faculty, aoneldered and edopted new regulationa or minimum of scholastic requirements for students ln the~Coll.ege of Arts and Solenoee at the Unlveralty of~Texaa. The new standard of work was en- titled 'Required Minimum of Work,' the pertinent part of which requlrementreads ae follows:
"To avoid Soholaatlc Probation or being dropped fKlm the rolls of the Unlverelty, tbe studentmuetmeet the followingstandard ofworkdtthe end of eaoh semester of the Long Session.' . . .
Honorable J. R. Parten, Page 3 (0-2106)
"Thenewrequ~ta k-e dW&entthan thoee oontalned in the aataloSue for 'Required Mlnhum of Work' and do not appearthereln.
between A-t I.5 and September 1, 1938, the Beglathr of the Unlverelty of Texas malleid prlntid ooplea of the no eoholsatlo requfreammts to eaoh etudentsnd pmepeotlve stu- dentwhoeenme andaddmee was Imown oravailable to tie Regletrar fran the records of the Unlverelty, but it 16 not known whether or not the partloular etudentreoelved euoh a notice.
"The student lu queatlon then returned to the Unlrerelty of Texas ind duly regletered and was admltted.to the College of Arts md'soienoea ln September, 1938, for the 1938-1939 aesalon. During the falleemesterthe etudentmade and ex- oeeded the minlmuri requlremente for eaholaetlc work ae set out in the catalogae, but failed to meet the new echolaatlo requete for sa3.d eemeeter and was placed on soholaetlo probation ln February, 1939. Uhen the atudent failed to meet thesenew soholsetlc requirements andwae plaoedonprobatlon, the Dean of the College of Arte end Solenoee on February 14, 1939, prepared end mailed the parent of the etpdent in ques- tion a notloe of said scholaetlc probation. There appeere upon the faoe of eald notice the following etatamentl 'See over forrulee relating to the requlredminimrrmofwork.' There iiprinted on the back of said notice a full statement of the n&#ze@ulremente formlnimpn of work in the College of Arte and Soi&eee at the University of Texas. At the bottamof the ealdnotloe and belaw a perforated line 16 a receipt fozin iarked QlPOElWT' with the statement 'To be sl~edendreturnedtoDe8nPerlinby tbepsrentorgoardlen' of the etudent.
"Thla receipt reads a* followe: 'I have received Emd read the attachedI?OTICE OF SCHOIASTIC PRORATION, and I under&and end accept the terms thereof.! A receipt of notloe of scholastic probation wee received by the Dean of the College d.Arta and Salenoes bearing the name of the father of said student ln question written in ink. This signed receipt foni Is now in the files of the Dean of the College of Arte and Soiencea. A copy of the form of said notice is hereto attached for your information.
"The student duly regietered in the College of Arte and Sciences for theeprlug semester of 1939. For said semester the student met the scholaetlo requirements as publlehed in the oatalogue, but again failed to meet the new requirements.
Honorable J. R. Parten, Pege (o-2106)
"Under tbenew scholastio reSu$.ezaente ofminimmnof work ia the College of Arts and Salenoes and by reaeon of the student's probatlcm and failure, the student ME required to attend the Surmmer Session, and if he paeaed the required emount of work at eald aeseion, he would have been permitted to z-e-enter the College of Arta end Solenaes in September, 1939, but lf he failed to pass each requirementa, he would nothavebeenpexmitted tohavereturnedaudregistered in maid College untilFebruary, 1940, requiring of him an ab- seme frau thecollege of one eemester. The studentrefueed to attend the Slmmrer Seasion, insisting that he had met the oatalogne scholaetio requirements end wee entitled to con- tinue In aaid College without. the neoesaity of attending the Suurmer Session, end that the new scholastic requirements were not applicable to him.
"The parents of the stndentcontend that the oatalogae is a contract and thattheBoard OfRegentewonldheveno authority to change the eoholaetic requbawnta existing at the time of th e q tudent's entrance irrto the College-of Arts and Sciences and apply them to eaid.student. But, on the otherhand, theBoe&ofRegenta contenda thatithae the power and authority to make proper and reasonable change6 in the~ruLee In regard to the minimmn of work required, either after proper notice to the student o~~wlth.the lmowledge and wnsent'of the etudent's pare&e or guardian.
"It is oanceded that in this caee the new scholaetio regulations are different- those oontained in the aata- loguti, and that the same were adopted by the Board of Regente in order to raise the atanderd of the acholaetiaworkr6- quired to continue in the.Univereit.v of Texae. It IS further collceded that the new rulea are more oneroue in the require- ment of proficiency of etndy.
"The student in question did notbeccme twenty-one yeare of age u&ilDeoember 21, 1939.
Will you pleaee advise me upon the following questions: "1. Whether or-not the catalogue in stating the aaholae- tic requirements fbrastudentto ocxltinue in the Vnivaraity ofTex= and the entrance of the studentunder Its tezme con- stitutes a written contrsct between the Unlversi~ of Texae end patron?
*2. If you auewer to the foregoing queetion in the .&f&native, then pleaee advise whether or not ae a matter of law under the facts of thie case tie partlea have 80 *5 Honorable R. J. Partsu, Pags 5 (o-2106)
altered, modified, or mmuded the origins1 contra& as tomake thenew requlredmlndxrumofworkxulss applloable to the student as VBB done in this case."
Statedmore simply,we have a studentvho duly registered ln theUnlverslty of Texas forths soholastla year lg37-~38pursuaut to, the tenas the oatalogue of that lnstltutlan in foroe atthattdme wverfxig the years lgX'-1938 an& 1938-1939. hnw other thinga the oata- l.ogue.contalned certalu standards of work required to be met by the stu- dent in order to avoid being placed tmder a spealalobsexvatlon,.apon finaltrlal,orbelng dropped frcmtherolls of theUniversity.
The student met these rsqudrsments as contained in the oatalogue under whioh he entered the University, but during the 1938-1939 eoholastlo year he fallsd to meet certain new stander& of work required as adopted by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas ou June 25, 1938, which are>sore ouerous thau those referred in the oata&ogue under which said student entered the University of Texas ln 1937; The required stand- ards of work as contained lu the oatalogne in force ln 1937, however, were atalltlsesmet. Because of his failure to meet the nsw'requlred staud- ards of Voxk during the 1938-1939 scholast;a year the student wa,ptiaed upon acholastlo probation, snd was instructed to attend Smmer School. He refused to atteudSmnerSchoo1, and the Uulvsrslty offlcials@'usedhim registration in September, 1939.
Your first questlou ls whether or not a oontraotualrelatloushlp eilstebetseen the etndantand'tha~lveraityofT~,aad the general ruls in this oouutry ls that snoh.oontraotual rslatlonshlp doessxdst. As .statedbyProfessorWllllston lnhls treatise upm the Law ofCcut.ra&s, .
"The ~eralAmerioan view ls that the relationbetween the student and a~prlvate lnstltutlan of learndug leoontrac- tualsnd thata studsntenterlngsuohau lustltutiouhas con- &motive lamwledge of the tems ofadmlssloustated lu its catalogue or enpmeemsnt, especiallywhere the student si@ls a rsglstzatlon card referring to arid conditioning entrance upon egrstint to the terms so stated. 'The offer is made up ao&lsotively of the tams of the University aatalogue, bulletins issued, and notices printed cm registration cards.
Allthe acts of registration aoustitute acasptmce.'" I WIU.EI~~~ 276.
In accord with this proposition are the following cases: Booker Y. Grirnd Rapids 'MedlcalCoUsge, 156 Mlah. 95, 120 N. W. 589, 24 L.R.A.
(N. S.) 447; Tate Y. North Pacific College (Sup. Ct. Oregon, 1914) 140 Paa. 743, People Y. Belleme HospltalMsdlcalColl.ege, 14 N. Y. Supp. 4901 aff., 8%. 253; Goldstein Y. New YorkUniversity, 78 1. Y. Supp. 739, Homer Schoolv. Wescott (Sup. Ct. N. C.) 124 1. 0. 518, 32 9. E. 885; 14 Corpus Jurls Secuudum p.1358J Barker Y. Trustees of Bxyne Mawr COUefJJ, et al. (Sup. Ct. Pa.), 278 Pa. 121, 122 Atl. 220) Gott Y. Bsrea College, 156 Ky. 376, 1.61s.~. 204, 51L.R.A. (NJ. S.) 17, 11 Corpus Jurls 984;
. - Honorable R. J. Parten, Page (o-2106)
Stetson University I. Hunt, 88 Fla. 510, l@ So. 637; Baltlmore University Y. Colton, 98 M. 623, 57 Atl. 14. Inacoord inTexas are the followlug cases: Vldor Y. Peaacak (C.C.A. 1912) 145 S.W. 672;~Tei~~mMiutacy College Y. Taylor (C.C.A. 1925) 275 S.W. 1089; Pleroe Y. Pescook Military College (C.C.A. 1920) 220 S.W. 191; Peaoook Military College Y. Hughes (C.C.A. 1!320), 225 S.W. 221; Peaoook Military College Y. Soroggins (C.C.A. 1920) 223 S.W. 232. England, pexhaps because of the traditional indepen- dence of her apiversltles, recognizes no such contractual relationship and oourts there affordnoredress to astudentarbltrarllydismissedorothsr- wise disciplined. Green Y. Master and Fellows of St. Peters College, Cem- bridge, 3lL. J. llg; lhcmsen Y. University of London, 33 L. J. C. 625.
See also~n University of Pennsylvania Law Review 694, 1Wllliston on Con- traots, p. 276. be
Volnme 27 of Rullug Case Law at page 144, states the rule to asfo.lLXfs:
"One who is admitted to a college and pays th e fees for the first year's instructionhas a oontractrlghttobeusrmittedto continue as a student untll.he, in regularcourse. attaine the diploma and degree whloh he seelm, end which the lnstitutian is authorized tb oonfer. and he oannot be arbitrarily dismissed at the cloee of a s-ear m~p<erely bayuse he is obnoxious to other stu- dents on account his race. While admitted students are at .._ - -- liberty to terminate allrelations at anytime, ltdoesnotrollow that'the college or unlwrslty has the same rl&t. In fact, when one is admitted to a college, there is sn lmplieduuderstanding thathe shallnotbe arbltrarllydismisssd therefraa. !Che required fees may be paid ennually, end may be no more thau fair fees for the advantages reoelved by the student during the year, end yet it Is clear that the fees for the first year are, in feat, paid aud received with the nndsrstanding that the work of the year will not be made fruitless, a graduation end a degree made im- possible, by au arbitrary refusal to permit further attendance.
fin thls~understsndlng thsre is no want of mutuality. There is no went of good ssd valuable oonslderatlon. A Law school oanuot dismiss astudent,orrefuse topsnnithlmtograduats,for irregu- larity in attendance, where Its CUB*, as understood at the time of his matrlaulation, was that all that was necessary for graduation was paymsnt of the required fees and completion of the work, to acc&plish which the student might take suoh time as was needed.
An action for breach of contra& is not an adequate remedy for au& wrcmgfulexpulslon depriving the 0tadent of the opportunity of obtaining a diplana aad de-e to whlah, under his contract, he is entitled, and mandamus will lie to ccmpelhis reinstatement." (Undersaorlng ours).
While there are fewrsportedoases dealingapeoifloallywltb state universities, we see no reesonwhg the rule sho&l be different. See Stats Y. Whits, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, Anthony Y. Syracuse University, *7 Honorable R. J. Parten, Page 7 (0-2106)
223~U. Y. Sul?p. (26) 98, I.30 Wieo. 249, reversed in part'23lN.~Y. Supp. 4351 Gleason Y. Unlverslty of bllnnesota(Sup. Ct. Mlun. E@), 108 Mlnn, I,.I~ B.W. 60; People Y. The Regents of the Unlversl~ of the State'of 359, New York; 199 App. Div. 3; 192 B. Y. Supp. 108; Nledemeyer Y. OIUT&.O~~I of the Tlhiwrsity of ldlssourl, 61.~iae. App. 654; Jadmon, et.sLv. State ei relyhjom (Sup. Ct. Nab. l.898) 57 Heb. 183, TN. W. 6621 State & rel kgemoU Y. Clappi et al, 8lMont. 200, Pac. 433; l3 Condl Law l2Vlrglnla LmtR ev ew 1 645; 27RullngCaseImf 1h.b. Quartert85; Volume 14 of Corpus Suris Secundum, page ~61, states the rule as foXlows:
"While the relation existingbeiwesn the college oruniver- sityaaa the 0tuatmt is ccntraotual, precln(liog an arbltrmry refusal to penult further attsndanoe, yet the power of 0uspenslOn or ex- pulsion of students is an attribute of government of eduoaticnal instltutlone, and obviously and of necessity there ls implied in the contract a term or aonditian that the student will obey and con- form to the.oollege rulea of government and will not be guilty of suah mlsoonduot as would'be subrarsive of the discipline of the oollege orunlverslty,oras wouldshowhimto beunfitmorally to bc oontlnued as a member thereof. It hes been stated that the rules o.feduoatlonal ~institutions suuuorted in whole or in part by auurop- rlations fmm the public treasury are viewed sanewhat m&n% oritl- oallybythe courts than those of private Institutions." (Undsra acorn oura) , :.
In otherwords, it seems the onlydistlnctionmade between private lnstita&lons end public instltutione is thatthe.rules of public instltu- tione ars vlewsd sawwhatmore orltioally by the aourls than those prl- rate lnstitutlona. This ieindeedtrueinT~,wheretbersasonablerales aud regulations pmmulgated.by the Board of Regents of the University of T- sre vlevedwlth the earns force and effect as legislative enaoimsnt. Foley Y. Benedict, lnfra.
In Anthonfv. Syraouse UnlvBrsity, 231N. Y. Supp. 475, the court held thatSyracuseUniversitywas a quasi-public instltutlon~ andabranch of the educati~lsywtem of the State of New York. In disuussing the re- lationship betweep a studs& and that institution, the court saidr
*UllderordinaryoLrclrmetaPcesaaaacrnditLoaaa~~on / matrloulatingatauniversity establishes a contractualre-
latlonshlp, under which upon aanplisnce with all reasonable regulations as to scholastic standing, attendance, deportment, payment of tuition, and otherwise, he is entitled to pursue his salsated course to completion and rsaelve the degree or certificate awarded for the successful ccnuplstion of suah degree."
- .
Honorable R. J. Parten,Page 8 (o-2106)
Again, lnTate ~.NorthPaoiflo College (Supreme Court of Oregon, 1914) 140 Pea. 743, the oourt saldr
"The lssueaoe by a college of aoatalogue statingthe re- quirements for gradaation and for the conferring on candidates of the degree of Dootor of DentalMedicine, aud the entrsnoe, matrlaulation, end attendance of sessions by a student with knowledge of those requirements constitutes aaontractby the student to oomplywith the rsqulremsnts, andby the collegs to issue a dlplaeLa on ocmpllance with the requirements."
InNeidenaeyer Y. Curators of the University Missouri, supra, the catalogue of tie stateuniversity for the yssrs 18$?-23% contained the statement that applicants for admlsslon to the classes of the law depart- mentvere mqd.rea to pay $50.00 for the~first *ear and $40.00 for each sucoesslw year. The plaintiff in l8g2paid$5O.OOandwas admitted to the Junior alma. The oatalogue forthesoholasticyear18g3-1894statedthat all law studentswere required to pay$5O,OOper year. The plaintiff in I.893 tendered $40.00 for admission to the senior class, was rejected and paid the $5O.OOdemandedunderprotest. It was held that the catalogue of the stateuniversltyoonstltutedanofferand theplaintiffbyregistering accepted the offer. The aourt then stated:
Yifter the-propo0ltlon contained in the oatalogue of l&2- 1893hadbesnacceptedbyple.intlff,and the ri&ts of tie plain- tlffhad thereby become fixed, itwas notwithin the power of the defendants to alter or abridge those rights by withdrawing the proposifionandpubllahingthatoantainadln the aatalogue of I.893 and 1894. And whether the plaintiff had notice of that fact be- fore he applied for admission to the seoond year.6 course or not, it se- to UB, oan make no dlfferenoe. The proposition oontained in the catalogue of 18p2-1893was that of the state,and,when accepted, gwd faith and fair deallug requirsd It should be carried out on the part of the state to the letter. Ansnlightenedend progressive state can ill afford to trifle with the ri&ts of the citizens in the slightest degree. The court erred inrejeotingthe theory oontained ln the plaintiff's instruotlou aud in adopting that oontaiued in those of the defendant's,'
In Foley Y. Benedict, et al. (Corn. App. 1932) 122 Tex. 193, 55 S.W. (2d)805, the courtwas 00~ernedwit.b thevalldityof aregulation idopted by the Board of Regents of ,the Unlversi~ of Texas requiring a certain standard of proficisncy in order for a student to stay in the mediaalbranoh of the University. Re-admissiou was refused the student afterhehad failed tomaintain audmeetthe standards required. The C~ission of Appeals quoted with approvalgertain passages from the opinion of State Y. White, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, whloh reoognised that certain aontraotual rights exist between a student and a state Supported unlverslty, held the regulation of the Board of Regents ti be a reasonable one, and in the course of this opinion said2
Honorable R. J. Parten,Page 9 (O-2&)
"A student who ls admitted to the unlverelty reoelves the prl~llege of attendlng that lnstltutlon sub.l;of to the reasouable rutis andregulations mmmluatedbyi3.mBoard ofRegents..eud exlstlng at the time ofhls sntrame intO the sohool." (Undersooring oura)
Consequently,wehold ln snswer td your flrst'questlon thtittid catalogues of We Univexxlty of Texw and bulletins issued, mailed to stu- dents and prospective studs&s of tiat institution, constitute sn offer to oontraatonthe part of the stats, through theBoard ofRegents,and that the acts ofreglstratlanoonstltute acceptance of suchan offerby the stu- dent. On the part of the Uni~erslty it ls agreed that lf the student will payhls reglstratlon,tmdallotherreqnlrsd fees enddeposlte, follow the courses prescribed in the oatfdogue, malntaln ordlnsry sB aiwi- pllllen3qulrsd,audthes~ of proficiency in work set-out In the w&alogne tier which he enters the University, it will in due course of time award such student a dlplana or degree. On the other hand, the stu- dentpranlses toabide by reasonable rules audregalatlons aonoerninghls dlsalpline, to follow the courses of study and the scholarship requlrmuents set forth in I916 cafalogne under.which he enters the Unlvsrslty, and to complete hie oourse within ths period prescribed. WehoUl that sucha cm- traotwas areated under the faots set forth in your letter.
Eowevhr, were we to hold that a contractual relationship does not eilstbetweenthe Universltyendone of its etadents, webelleve thatunder the oase ofFoleyv.Bsnedlct, supra, the rssultwouldbe the seme. Inthe BePedlctcase, tbeCamlsslonofAppsals pointedoutthatreasonible mles and reglllntlinl0 prmrmleatea by the Board of Regents of tl&~lverslty of Texakhave the effect of Leglslatlve ma&mats. The oourtalsomade it clear thatupi admlsslona stadentreoelves the rlght of attending the instiintlun subJect to the reasonable rules and regulaticms prcmmlgatedby the Board of Regents and exlstlng at the time of his entrsme into the SChoOl.
In other wm&, fraa whatever theory the rlghtmay spriug, oertati fixed orvestedrlghta aoorua to the studentuponhis entrsnce into the State University "tier a particular catalogue". We do not believe that these flxedorvested rights so acquiredby the studentoanbe changedor modified to hlcdetrlmsnt by the prmml@lm of retxoaotlve~~niles and regi- lathns by the Board of Regsnts of the Onlversity of Texas. Such would not be reasonable rules audreguXatlons within themsaulngof theBsnedlctoase, sugra.
In aumer to your second question of whethe* Or not as a matter of law uuder the facta of the case the parties have'&l&ed, modified, or wended the orlginalaontra&as tonake ths nsw re~&&e&@Mmumofimrk rules applloable to the student in question, we must-:pii@','%hat the parties have not as a matter of law under the facts given ae:~,i&tered the oontmct first entsred into ln September, 1937, between the .stident~and the Unlver- sity of Texas. The only facts relating to this part of your question shuw *10 Hanorable R.J. Parten, Page 10 (04106)
that notice was given on February 14, 1939, to the parentofthe student in question advi@ng that the student had been plsaed upon scholastic of work required. probation and alsoadvlsingof thenews-
There is no evidence under the faots set forth in your letter thatawntrsctww ever entered lntobetween the perents of the student and the University with regard to his education. We fall to see, there- fore,hownotlce to the parents of thenew nilas endof the student being placedupcmscholastlc probation audacceptance by themofsaldnotlce~ could inanywlse alterormodify the aontreutentered lntobstweenthe ~llnlw~lty of Texas and the student in September, 19X'. There ls no evldmce under the facts glvsn uf~ as to any waiver on the part of the student of his right to continue under the orlglnaloc&raot, of his own aooeptsnoe of the new rules as promulgated by the Boexd of Regents in 1938; or, even lf such an aoceptanoe could be shown, oonslderatlon for such en emended~~ocntraot.
Under the circumstances, we must answer your second question in the nsgatlve.
V-3 fm.4 yoara, By /s/Welter R. Emh Walter R. Koch Assietant By /a/ Jarmes D. SmulLeii James D. Smnllen JIX%*nldS APPROVED
APPHOVED APR 16, 1940 OPINION /s/ Gerald c. MBnu :rm, oHAmw ATlYXdEXm OFTEXAS