June 29, 1955 Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion No. S-162 Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency Re: Effect of abolishment Austin, Texas of an independent 8ChOOl district on existing teacher em- Dear Dr. Edgar: ployment contracts. In requesting the opinion of this office~you have Stated that the board of trustees of an Independent school district engaged the services of some additional school teachers to fill positions which the board declared had been vacated by other teachers. In less than a month after this action was taken, an election ,in the district, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2767, Vernon's Civil Statutes, abolished the independent district. The county board of school trustees then created a common school district con- taining the same area comprised in the former independent school district, and appointed a three member board of trustees for the new common school district. One of the first acts of the board of trustees of the common school district was to cancel the teaching contracts awarded to the replacement teachers by the board of trustees for the former independent school district. You have asked the question as to the validity of the teaching contract8 in the light of the order of cancellation. School districts are "quasi municipal corpora- tions.' Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 26 (1931). 11 . under the well established rule of equity: when the same, or s,ubstantiallythe same, inhabitants form a new corporation with the same territorial limits, the new corporation is treated as the successoK of the old and Subject to its.lia- billties. Young v. City of Colorado, 174 S.W. 986, 694 [Tex.Civ.App. 1915, error ref.) See al80 Rocky Mount I.S.D. v. Jackson 152 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Tex.Civ.App. 1941, error ref.j. ~The board of trustees of the independent school district was authorized to contract with the teachers it em- ployed. Article 2781, V.C.S. Those contracts created a Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (S-162) liability against the independent school.district. Campbell v. Jones, 264 S.W:2d 425 (Tex.Sup; 1954); Rocky Mo,untI.S.D. v. Jackson, supra; Fikes v. Sharp, 112 S.W.2d 774, 777 (Tex. Civ.App. 1938, error ref.); Borger I.S.D. v. Dickson, 52 S.W. 2d 505 (Tex.Civ.App. 1932, error ref.). When the independent school district was abolished by election the common school district succeeded to all the assets of the former district, and likewise became liable for all the obligation8 of the old district. Article 2767c, V.C.S.; Rocky Mount I.S.D. v. Jack- son> supra. The teaching contracts could not be revoked without any charge of fraud, imposition, or mutual mistake, and without a hearing given the teacher8 in regard to the in- tended revocation of their contracts. Miller v. Smiley, 65 S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tex.Civ.App. 1933, error ref.). Under the circumstance8 described in your request the contracts of the teachers legally employed by the board of trustees of the independent school district were not af- fected by the abolition of the independent school district and the subsequent creation of the common school district comprising the same,boundaries. The action of the board of trustee8 of the common school district was ineffective to cancel the teaching contracts. Consequently, the teacher8 are still employed by the school district for the remaining term of their contracts. SUMMARY A School district succeeding to the same boundaries held by a former school district assumes the assets and obligation8 of the for- mer district. Teaching contract8 of the former district remain as continuing obligation8 of the succeeding district. APPROVED: Yours very truly, J. C. Davis, Jr Count??Affairs Division JOHN BEN SHEPPERD William W. Guild Attorney General Reviewer J. A. Amis, Jr. Reviewer BY Robert S. Trotti First ASSiStant AiSiStant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General BEL:zt