In OUT CplnlOn NO. 0-2493 we ruled that undv the provision8 of Article 2922f, Revlaed Civil Statut48, 19215, an element my school dlstriot wl thin e rurel hi& school district may be diaoontlnued by the rurel hi@ s0hoOl dl&i- triOt trU&8ee and consolldatsd with EXXJ~&Q? di&trict athin the rural hi& eohool district for elemntary purposes with- out tha neo4aaity of holding; an elrctfon v&en the eohool within the elementary district falls to hat4 an average dally ettendan04 the preceding year of at least EO pupils. We further ruled that after auoh dlacontlnuanc4 by the local board and consolidation of th4 district with another by ths county eohool board it would bs wlthln the authority grants6 the local bcerd of truetaas to remove the build1 in th4 el4a4ntary dlstriot to aupplem4nt the housing fao litler at "p the dlrtrlct ae consolidated. In view of dlrrioultier which might aria4 upon the complete dlrsolutlon of the rural hl$h school dlatrlot, we s~gcsted, ea a matter of pr404utlon, the rural high sohool board should make some provlslon to protect and preserve any property rl&ta which th4 origina slementary diatriot might have.

It hea been eug&eated thet the board of tN6t406 of a rural high sohool district has the authority to do the acts get out in the additional queatlans, based Upon an inferen drawn from ths court's qualltlo4tlon ln Chastaln v. Maul&in (T. C. A. 193O) 32 3. ?V. (ad) 235, quoted in The. lfmguage referred to read8 as mrO~$ion No. 0-2483. "The point 1s made in appsllees brief t&t the bulldlng l~ey returned or a new on4 Qr4Ot4d When- eves the necessity ariaee. The trusteea of the groupea dietriot hav4 ths manageement 4nd control in question, and we do Ilot hold of the building that they 4r4 without atuthor$ty under proP4r 4af4- guards for its return or r4plaoezu4nt to reBove it temporarily to the Groavenor dietriot. That quw4- tlon, however, la not prorented by ths pleadinga or proof befOr uao The 0684 es mado by the rrcord *3 : r

Ron. Welter Marohlaon, Pago 8

preaente on17 the question or the power or th4 Groammr tN8tOO8 to convert the 80hool building Of the Panther Creek d1m.w (Underaoorlng oura)

In the Ch4atain Case the oourt wea careful to point Out ?&fit 80 10% 88 the TariOwa dementsry dlatriota within the grouped rural high achool dirtriot malntelned their a8P~ratO IbRtity, the property en4 funds of the various diatrlota should be maintained and not diverted from on4 dlatrlot to Mother or to the grouped district, Tb+ OoOt dlreotly held:

"Th4 trustee8 of the group46 distriot were l.nveat4d with tbs pomr and cherged with the duty of canduoting aohools and of admlnIstarlng all 80hool roperty end fund8 Of all the Uiatrlot8 with n 'p the bound8riea of the conaolldatad diatriota. But they did not have tha right to divert property aa funds or one ~dlatrict Go another, or to the grouped dietriot.

This la oleerlg the holding in the KoPheil 4eae. It ra0w8 th4 t they did not h4va tb4 power t0 remove the aohool bulldfng of the P4nth.r Creek diatrlot to the Groavamr blatriot, a8 that would have b44n a dlv4rsion or the proparty from it8 proper purpom and objeot. The only wn8Olid8tlOn arraoted by the grouping was thet of the fund8 031laoted fran taxation ior gen4ral m4lnt4lnanoa. The ownerehlp of auoh 4ohool buildings of the several diatriota rsmain4e the property of thoae dlstrlota end 00uie not b4 eiv48t4e or lmpairee by the trusteea or ths grouped district. Vie believe ana 80 hole that in attempting to rermrve th4 school bullding the trustees wore about to perform a wholly umuthcrieeh eat."

The tN&bae of B rurel hi${h aohocl diatriot, it la true have control and manegaaront of the 84hool8 4nd building8 in t& various eiatrlcta making UP the gmup, aad umm tb& general pomp*, the court reoogniseh that olroumat~noa~ W+t arlee wherein itnould within their pOwOr t0 “temPOrar1~Y” remov4 8 building or other .prOpOrty from an 4Xi8tiW elm- tary dietriot. However, to extend the inf4r4noe drawn iron this dictum ^[80] as to author144 th4 b06re to do th4t *id I4 augge8ted by the 4ddltloral quwtions Would be ‘practical~ly to nullify th direct holding Of the court.

Hon. Wiltrr ASurchiron, ?age 1

We here %xamined the r%oords b%rore the oourt in that 088% ~4 the t%Cte now b%iora ue %re practiaelly the sama a8 those whloh the omrt oharectorize4 am 8 oonrsrelon of' the %ohool building of the Panther Cr%ek district.

with the bame ~%liflo%tlOn% reoognized by the oouvt in Chmstaln v. tiauldln, aupr% each of the foregoing questlone are anawered in the negatlrr.

You-6 rory truly ATTORHK!f OENERAL OF TEXAS ccc:rw