THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
Hon. Walter Murchison ginion No. O-2493
County Attorney : Moving buildings from one
Haskell County elementary district to another
Haskell, Texas within a Rural High School Dis-
trict D
Dear Sir:
We are in receipt of your letter of June 25, 1940,
requesting an opinion by this Department which reads in part
as follows:
"As it has been presented to me the facts in
this case are as follows: The Pleasant View Common
School District was, in 1938, grouped with the
Weinert Independent School District and several
other common school districts to form Weinert Rural
High School District after an election held for that
purpose. Since that time and for about two years
prior thereto no school has been held in the Pleasant
View District, the pupils of said district having
attended the Weinert School under contract prior to
the formation of the rural high school district and
afterward under transfer there. During all of said
time and at the present there are and were approxi-
mately 35 pupils attending the Weinert School from
the Pleasant View Common School District.
"Under the above state of facts the Board of
Trustees of the Weinert Rural High School District
are planning to ask the abolition of the Pleasant
View District by the County Board of Trustees that
they be enabled to remove the school building for-
merly used for elementary school purposes in the
Pleasant View District to Weinert that it be there
used to supplement the housing facilities now avail-
able.
"There would seem to be no prior agreement or
contract such as is mentioned in Chastain v. Mauldin,
32 SW (2d) 235.
"The question is whether under such facts the
County Board of School Trustees can consolidate the
Pleasant View District with some other district, to-
wit, Weinert, for elementary school purposes and the
Hon. Walter Murchison, page 2 (O-2493)
Rural High School District Board of Trustees
order it discontinued and remove the buildlng,
all of this without an election.”
Please accept our thanks for the helpful brief and
discussion accompanying your letter of request.
The material portions of Article 2922f, Revised Civil
Statutes, 1925, read as follows:
“The county board of school trustees shall not
have authority to abolish or consolidate any
elementary school distric,t al.ready established
except upon the vote of a majority of the quali-
fied electors residing in such elementary dis-
trict; provided that when any school within an
elementary district fails to have an average
daily attendan.ce the preceding year of at least
twenty pupils it may be discontinued by the board
of trustees of said rural high school district,
and said district may be consolidated by the
county board of school trustees with some other
district or districts for elementary school pur-
poses.”
As we construe the above statute the county board may
not abolish or consolidate an elementary district without
an elect ion, unless the average daily attendance for the pre-
ceding year is less th.an 20 and the board of trustees of the
rural high school district has by proper order discontinued
such school.
This construction is supported by the language’ of the
court in County Board of Sch~ool Trustees of Limestone County
v. Wilson (T.C.A., 1928) 5 S.W.(2d) 805, referring to Articles
2922b ,t0 29221, as ~o~.~ows:
“They further provide that the elementary
districts composing said high school district
shall not be consolidated n,or abolished by the
county school trustees except upon a vote of the
qualified electors resi,ding therein, unless the
daily attendance for the preceding year shall
have fallen below twenty.”
It is our opinion that when the conditions of the pro-
viso above quoted are met, no election is necessary to, author-
ize the respective boards of trustees to discontinue the elemen-
tary school and consolidate the elementary district with another
elementary district for elementary school purposes.
Hon. Walter Murchison, page 3 (O-249,31
In Chastai.n v. Mauldfn, (T.C.A,, 1930) 32 S.W.(2d)
235, “ no action of any character was taken which efther
attempted or had the effect of abolishing the Panther Creek
District.” The court held that the trustees of the rural high
school district could not divert the property or funds of one
elementary district ‘40 another, or to the grouped dfstrect and
therefore were without authority to remove the school building
of one elementary district, which had not been abolished or
consolidated, to the Grosvenor district. A distinction might
be drawn between this case and the facts presented by you in
that here the boards of trustees propose to follow the statutes
in effecting discontinuance a.nd consolidation before takin.g any
action with reference to the ‘building.
We think the following language in Chastain v. Mauldin,
supra, fs signi?fcant b
“The p ofin t AL s ,.,;,-de in z;:pellees brfef that the
bufldfng may Ut; yeturned or a NW one erected when-
ever the necessity arfses, ‘The trustees of the
grouped di.strict have ‘the management and control
of the building in questfon, arid we do not hold
that they are wi.tnout azthorfty under proper safe-
guards for its return or replacement to remove it
temporarily to the Grosvenor distrfct. Tha,t ques-
tion, however, fs not presented by the pleadings
or proof before us. The case as made by the record
presents only the questfon of the power of the
Grosvenor tr,u,stees to convert the school buflding
of the Panther Creek district.‘” (tinderscoring oursi
‘We cal.1 attenti~on to Article 2.922a, H.C.S., 1975,which
provides that upon the abolition of the rural high school
district 9 the elemen,tary districts shall return to the1.r original
status. Some qu.est,ion. migh,t be raised as to ,the property rights
of the resptc,rtYve districts in the event of a dissolution, wh,ere
the property originally belongfng to one district had been moved
to another 9 although a consclldation withi,n the rural high school
district for elementary purposes had been ordered.
It appears from your letter that after the discontinu-
ance of the school and the consolidation of the district with
another by the County Board, the rural high school trustees wish
to supplement housing facilities in another and no facts are sub-
mitted which indicate that the board may not adequately accomplish
its purpose under the exception mentioned in Chastain vs. Mauldin,
supra. We are of tne opinion that this is a. matter falling within
the authority granted such board but we are further of the opin-
ion that proper provision shoul,d be made by the rural high school
board to preserve and protect the property rights of any affected
district. This is especially true because of the uncertain and
Hon. Walter tirchison, page 4 (O-2493)
unsettled status of the case law upon this and related ques-
tions.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEYGENERALOF T&US
By /s/ Cecil C. Cammaok
Cecil C. Cammack, Assistant
APPROVEDJUL 8, 1940
/s/ Glenn R. Lewis
(Acting) ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN