316
OFFICE OF
TEE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AUSTIN.TEXAS
Honorable
Joe P. Rlaok
Qounty Attorney
"II= ,";Z:L
Dear Slrr
Opinion No. O-5462
Rez Dlspositlon of money amI
proper~p of d4strlota
upon fornatlm 0r rural
high sob01 distzlot.
We have reoofved your letter of July 19, 1943,
whloh we quote in part a8 tollowsr
“The Gounty Judge of Menard Oounty, has a&-
eU me for an opinion BEIto the following mtter.
I have advised h5.mIn answer to said question,
but a8 usual, he thinka thst he'should have an
opinion from your Department.
*On June 19, 1943, an election waa held and
was carried anuerlng oertain oommn aohool &la-
trlote wlth the lWmrdrille independent Sahool
Dletriot or oonaolidatlng said distrlots under
the Rural Iii& School Act.
Vlome of these sohool distrlota have money
on hand and own property, the question ie: what
1s to beoome of eald aroperty and rooaey? That
is, said dlatrlots have looal tax money on hand
and own busses and other property, but as 1 under-
stand they have no banded indebtedners and the
question la, as state6 ebove:,whet should be %ane
with thl6 property?*
,317
Eon. Jo. P. Flask, pade 2
Wa do not hare bsfore ua the quastlon of tha o#tablf&
msnt of the aalarged Uf8trlot, snd for tha purpoaea of thj,a
opinion, W aPStUESthat tb sadbeMS 1S@dly eatnbllshad. Our
aa&wer till, tharafere ba oonii5ad to the quaatlon of t&a
proper dloposltlonof ihe fu5da v5d property Of tha Individual
Ogt;;ttEV350hry dkZitdOt UpOn ths ,::fOI25EtifM ‘Of the Oa2gOh ah-
.
Artiimi 2922a, vsrnon'll&ADRtmteiiClril 8ta0otea, rrrta
forth the prooedure wherabp a rural hl&h oohwJ,4lstriet w br
roradl. !&a a&hod nhatoby such a df8triot aay'be eboliahod la
also girtlo. Buoh aethod la aa followar
"* * + ~erldad that tha eouaty aah&
tru8teer.shall
hawe the autkumlty
to aboUah
a ruml high aoboti dlotrlot on a petltien
ilgneilby a majority or tha*btcrrsof eaoh '
alamantarydirtriot ~onipo~ the rural high
school dlstrlot and whan euoh district haa
baan absllshad the elasmntar~ districta shall
automatioallyrsoact baok to their arfgiaal
etattls,
*.ith the ez0egtian~that in the otont
there a?3 tiny OUtEkDding inde~tOdne~@
k?k&atnst
the 8ald rural aohoel Ulatrlot eash ela~~aatary
dlstriot ahall laaum its porportlonalpart OS
the dabts."
%han aahool dS8triotaare oonaoltdatad.tmdsrA&201@
2806, Qiril Miatota8, the~diatriotaoonaoll-
Var5on~*~Anrmtati&l
dated lose thair'saparataldentlty. Bowever tha fomation of
a rural high school dlatrlot doss riotabolia6 the olamntary
bishrlots,a5d aeparats.elanreatary soh~oJ.8mst be maintained
theraln. Artiole 2922f Chaatain v. Waul&ln, 32 S, Wi (2&j
2371 MoPhall v, Tax Co9 eotoror Van Zadlt~Oounty, SO S, A.
2603 Qounty Roam3or sohool Trusteea of Ligsstons Oounty V.
Wilson, 9.8, W. (2d) 805 Opinion No. O-308$. AntIunder Artl-
01s 2922~ upon the abolftlon or the rural hi&& aoheel dlatriot,
the eLomenta,rydistriotareturn to thalr original atatun.
318
Honr.Joe P. l”bok, we )
In the oaae of ChmtaI~ v. ?dauldln,supra,'t&qeaart
bad before it ths gueetion rbAlth6r, the truateee of a roral.
high sc~ol dlstriot oould rccnovethe sohoalhmm or en ele-
mentary district to another Qletrtota 'Soquote the foXle
Sraa the oainfon sf the eouxtt
* * * * In tiieMaPhall Case above, Judge
Loaney in holdingoonstltatloha~ the prorialona
of ahepter 19a, title 49, e&8 forth very clear-
4 the purpoeee and offee+ of the le,@slcitloa.
As there potnted out,the ereupine
doea not have the afSe&of abd.h
sohooln in the distriot, $h~e*aboll8hhfng
the
ssrexel diotriat bmtbs, ate trulte.l
or the grouped Qietrfot were itweated with the
parrerand oherged with thhs.dut Of coadudtiag
aahools and of abl.nlaterin@ af aoho81 property
and fund8 rd 6.U the dlstriota wlth3.n the baun-
havethe ~wer
to removo the eohool of the,Panther creek
distrlot to the Sroavenor dietriot, a6 that would
have been a dioeroion of the property from It8
proper purpoee an& object, The on3.0eonsoXidatIon
a.ff%otedby the ~rou&xg wu that or the Tunbi a,el-
'leoted fron taxation for gsneraZ fualnCfmwmr The
ownershipor schml build~Iu@ of the several die-
trlota rmalned thirpropertg or those dlstriete
end oould tat be divested or Intpatra&by the-true-
teea of the mouped dietriot. %I believe and 80
hold that In at;teqMn.$ to X$ROQ~ the %CrhQOlbull&
im3 the trustees were c&out ti3 p43rtomna wbri;lly
unauthorized aat."
%a. JoeP. FlRok,page4
Upon the dlsnolakionof a rural h&h soho& distriali,
oartald questions tight be ralud ao to the propiwty r
or the varloua aletriots if the money aad preparty ari
belong&g to the lndlvidusldlstriots had bean used in 0th~
dlstrlats or-in the edlerged dfatriat.
Evidently~underthe Pauldin ease, and you are so a&
vised, upon the roneetlon of s rural.high sahool dirtriot, the
trustees or aaid dbtrlat my uwthe rUnas and zaparty or an
‘tlameatary dietriot only fdr the beaetlt of said eleeeatary
dlstriot.
Eowever, we call~your attention to that rt 0r the
opinion or the aourt.in the Mauldin ease whioh rea r8 aa fellmat
a * * * Tha trurtees sr the goupea Biatrlot
have themamqamaat and control or the bulld&g
in'puestlcm,and we do not hold that they are
without a,uthorltg under proper safeguards1161:
it8 return or replilomnaat te remve It p-mpolr-
2, rily to the Brenrenor 4lrrtrio0, TtUt Quertioa,
;- -however,is hot presantaU by &ha pleading or
proof before ah I The oas+ a8 aado by the moor4
/. preaanta only the puestion or Ihe poaioror the
?’
Groirenor trusteea Lo ooavsto the aohool.bulldb
or the Panther Crbrk &+rlOl.w
1.
We~bsllsre that~uadar t&la laaguags It my by that bua-
!: mw aad other
property of’ the elfmeatary di6trlot uhieh 18 mw-
.<
oeptibls .orIming used DV~P.tho 3nlarged tietrlot nay ba LO
i$
used lr proper saf%gt~~Ie are takait t0 preasrva and p%WWt the ’
.I
.progf&iy rights OS ths elmentaiy iU&riot.
ii
,~.
p: Yourn very truly,
A”PROVXD JtZY 31, 1943 ATTOm G53Wl?ALOB TEZAl3
(slgnsd)Waver Seller8
opiaba
hmaittee
%r