*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

Juywy 87, 1939 %onorablo L. A. Wooda

State supsrintonaent of

Publio Instruotioa huatia, Taxa8 *2 .1. .Iy&ls, January &I, IWW, pane z. ___.__- ___- -. We do not find a oa8e wberoln a County Superln- tendent has bean removed from offioa, henoa; we vlll ear the analogy, and in doing .this, we hold as a matter of law, that a County Superintendent is a 00miy 0rf i0er. 6% eta are a eubdivlelon OS

Y---Q--J a county, and eohool truateee are county ofSioex5.w Hendricks vs. state, 49 S. V.

705. Klnbrough vs. Barnett. (SuFrese couxt). .58 3. W., 18G.

*The Commissioner*8 Court have not the authority to judlolally determine a rWt of one to an otfioe or to remove a legally qualified officer from his ofrioa, for the jurlsdlotlon l~~thlr matter 110s within tha exoluslre cognizance of the Dietriot Courfhw Ellln~er vs. Ranklm, 89 8. W., 840.

Thie holdinp: is supported by 8 line OT deoi8ion olted by Tax. Jur. Vol. U, pages 579.87+5?9,,and therein the rule is laid down: The Court (Comlasloaer** Court) has no the right

authority jwlioially, to daterml.na o? onm to an offtoe or to remove a legally qualified officer from offioe, the dlotfon in,thla matter 110s within E&i3i*a oognlseaoa of tha Distriot Gourt.*

In view or the faota, OYOXI thou&h, that ln adztin- lstratlve netters the State Superintendent must bm appaa$ed to in 80818 instanoes before reooureo can bs had to Couxtt hthe&(l.as a matter of law that any prooeadlngs had, or hearing held betore a Stat0 Super- intendent ot Publio Instruotlon, regardin& a removal- to remove a County Superintendent Srom nor an ettespt oSTloe4,, would be void ana of,no foroe and effeot.

Yours very truly G3B:GFS