tIm oorl6iolidatlon, in0lul. mOC8 than tb0 terrl- torf lnoluded wlthln the bouularira of tho Cltf of whitowr1&ht9* It is within tlm paru of th0 L0glOlaturO to out&x-

1.0 oltloa or tow.. whloh l onatltoa. lnbopanbmt l aho6t dla- to extend tbk tounduloa for l oheol purpoaaa. Moos- trlata oholl T. City of lbaaglo Lake (Cl+. App.) SW 8. W. 990, l xror ~~0041 aitf 0r leasl0 ta ‘I. ubaide Rio0 wi ah, (oh. Am.) 111, S. W. 9lS, orro~ rafumed; City OS I%&. Lab t. If.Mtdt~' wylu Raflnlrq Co., (Clr. App.) 144 3. w. 909, l rxox ~h0 ~4 gi0i0tur~ h0 00 ptia4d t0r this p r ow0 SSOS of @ia Beriaob Clrll St.tutea Taua, vtblah ln Artlila xoada as followar y ba owad or OOQ-

tmoted ouoh en QP oitr. l!ha property tha add06 tarrloorg ahedl bau its pro rata prt of alI 8ehool tares, but ai rs' otbar tams. The asldod t&X+ rltory shall not airrot the oltg'a dabta or bualneaa r0latloos in On9 mmwr whatuu, erwpt fox aohool purpoaaa as provlda4 abava. The oHloara whaaa duty It la to aOO0aO and oollsot lrhool taxes within olty 1lmlta ObaU alao’uaao.a and ool.lsat aoil0ol tax- the territogj l adod for aohool purpoaoa .a es within hcreln provl&.d.’ ktlnderscoring ours).

Istlcls 8804, Revised Civil 3tcntutea or Texas, the conatitutlonalltp of whloh baa been upheld (City or Ho?aatoa 'I. Todd (Clr. App.) S76 S. W. 419),proyldes that uhmeru tba llinit8 of e oft9 Whioh oonatltuto8 a5 lndapendsnl+ school dlatrlot are extended or wlargad ao es to inoludo dj4mont lnde ndent school dlatriota or oommon aohool dlatrlotg,bha tar tory so lnoludad *shall hermitor baoomo a pera ad par- rr

tlon of the independent aohool dlatrlat oonstltuted by awh lnoorporatad olty or town." City OS Houston v. Todd, 8upra.

Artlole 8808, Roylrod Civil Statutaa, fires the Us- bility the city for It8 ~roportlon of the bonded lndobtrd- nua of the Ul8trlot anaued to the oitg.

In Euhn v. City of Toakus, 859 8. Vi. 839, It ma ob- jootd that Revised Clyll. Statutes, 1911, Artlole m (I&- rlaod Clrll Statutes, lQSS, Mlolea SSC8, et sag.) woo un- oonatitutlonal la that it authorlaed property to b8 l &¶oCto an ailatlng 8ohool diatrlot and, nitbout an eleotlon persona affroted, &a48 their propert in the aaWl turltmry liable for its *pro rata* p8rt or the crlatlng lnbebtodnoaa the dietdot. It was held that whcro a majority OS the naldenta of the added trrrltory petition ror an addltlon to the olty for aohool purposes only, they cannot otmpla111 bo- oeuae no elaotlon la hold to detomlna whether the adbad~tu- rltorr rlll pa9 its pro rata 8kmrn Of till6 erietill& dabta of th* annuing dirtriot.

Cn the queatlon of the 00-n aahool dlatrlot bmla(l in tno oountlea, this dopartnmnt, we think, oorreotly hold la I.919 that a olty OP town my extead it8 limit0 for who01 pum- ~poaea only without regard to oounty llelta,

Ia tlsw of the foragolng dlamaalon, It lo our oplnlwh that the City of Whitewright., ruoh l-ma a8aumed aontPo1 ai lt0 ehoola, ma9 extend it8 alty llmltr for rehool purposes only to lnolud4 the adfaoont OOUUQO~ aohool dfOtd.et, uador the author- ity of Article RSCS, Reylad Civil Statutaa, and th8 bend tar wl1.l bo spread over the 4ntiro di8trfet a0 proridod for in ~tloloa fmfX3 and 8808 of the Refvlood Civil StetuteO.

Honorable 3'. X. TrimBls, pago ir

Trusting that thie aaswua your queetlon, we are