OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Chas. E. Reegan
District Attorney
Falls.County
Marlin, Texas
Dear Sir:
field notes was discovered at the time they were compiled,
but In 1939 it was discovered that the new field notes made
a change in the boundary line between McCollum Common
School District and Slade Chapel Common School District so
that six or seven hundred acres of land was taken from the
latter district and added to the UcCollum district. Your
letter continues as follows:
"The minutes of the County Board of
Trustees of Rev. 5, 1932, page 209 read
Honorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 2
as follows: 'The County Board met in
called meeting Nov, 5 with all members
present. Boundaries of all school dis-
tricts in the county were re-established
and redefined according to the field
notes recorded in Book 1, District Record
of Schools, on pages ----.* The minutes
are signed by Miss Lois Souther as County
School Superintendent and Secretary of
the Board, but are not signed by the
president of the board. . .
"The boundary lines given by these
rield notes correspond with those given
by the field notes of 1895 except on the
N. E. corner of the district where six or
seven hundred acres of land VMS taken
rrom the Glade Chapel District and added
to the McCollum District. However, even
though the field notes of 1932 show a
change in the N. E. boundary line, the
line given by the field notes of 1895
has always been used as the correct bouna-
ary. In fact no one in either the Glade
or McCollum Districts knew of any change
having been-made until recently. A few
weeks past the trustees of the McCollum
District read the 1932 field notes and
noticed the change in the N. E. boundary
line, and are now contending for the aa-
aitional territory.
" . The only record that shows
any chenie'is the field notes of 1932,
compiled by Mr. Harris. The McCollum
trustees contend that the County Board
made the change in 1932 when they approved
the field notes compiled by Vx. Harris.
The Glade Chapel trustees contend that
the minutes of the Commissioners' Court
and the county board do not show a change
had ever been legally made and that the
county board did not have the authority
to make the change in 1932 even if that
was their intention; . . .
*Under these conditions, which, in
your opinion, is the correct boundary
Honorable Chae. E. Reagan, Page 3
line between these two districts; the
one given by the original field notes
of 1895 or the one given by the field
notes of 1932 as compiled by &. Harris
and approved by the County Board of Trus-
tees?"
We hove omitted the metes and bounds descrip-
tions from the Commissionerst Court records of 1895, and
from the "Record of Schools" of 1932, which you quote at'
great length, because we do.not think they are material
in arriving at our answer to your question,
In 1932 there were two statutes in effect that
control the answer to this question, and those were Section
2 of Rouse Bill No. 220, Forty-rirst Legislature, First
Called Session (Article 2742e), and Section 1 of House Bill
No. 25, Forty-first Legislature, First Called Session (Ar-
ticle 2742f). House Bill No. 25 has since been amended,
which is immaterial to this discussion.
Section 2 of said House Ml1 NO. 220 (Article
2742e), in 1932, read as follows:
"Sec. 2. That on and after the pass-
age of this Act the County Board of School
Trustees in any county in this State shall
have authority and full power to create
Common School Districts, to subdivide dis-
tricts, and to change boundary lines of
any or allCommon School Districts leg-
ally coming under the jurisdiction of the
County Board of School Trustees, subject
to the supervision of the District Court
having jurisdiction over the county where
the County Board is appointed or elected;
provided that before any changes may be
made in boundary l.inesof school dis-
tricts the trustees of the Common School
Districts affected shall be notified to
appear before the County Board for a hear-
ing, and after said hearing, or the date
set for said hearing, the County Board of
Trustees may pass such order or orders as
will carry out the provisions of this Act;
provided, further, that the trustees of
the districts affected may appeal from the
decision of the County Board to the Dis-
trict Court."
Honorable C&s. i;.Reagan, Fage 4
Section 1 of said Bousc Bill No. 25 (Article
2742f), in 1932, read as follows:
"In each county of this State the
County Board of Trustees shall have
the authority, when duly petitioned as
herein provided, to detach from and an-
nex to any school district territory
contiguous to the common 'boundaryline
of the two districts; provided the
Board of Trustees of the district to
which the annexation ~1sto be made ap-
proves, by majority vote, the proposed
transfer of territory and provided, fur-
there, that where the territory to be de-
tached exceeds ten per cent (105) of the
entire district the petition must be
signed by a majority of the trustees of
said district in addition to a majority
of the qualified voters of the territory
to be detached. The petition shall give
the metes and bounds of the territory to
be detached from the one and added to
the other district and must be signed
by a majority of the qualified voters
residing in the said territory so de-
tached. Upon receipt of the said peti-
tion, duly signed, and upon notice of the
approval of the proposed annexation by
the Board of Trustees of the district to
which the territory is to be added, the
County Board of Trustees shall pass an
order transferring the said territory
and redefining the boundaries of the dis-
tricts affected by said transfer, the sala
order to be recorded in the Minutes of the
County Board of Trustees. Provided that
no school district shall be reduced to an
area of less than nine square miles."
It will be noticed that in 1932 House Bill No.
220 (Article 27420) specifically provided that Wbefore any
changes may be made in boundary lines of school districts
the trustees of the Common School Districts affected shall
be notified to appear before the County Board for a hear-
ing." '6~think that it was absolutely necessary that this
provision be complied r*ithbefore the changing of the
boundary line between two common school districts COUid be
Honorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 5
valid, and this view is eupported by the opinion in the
case OS Board of School Trustees of Young County vs. EM-
lock Common School District (Comm. App.), 55 S. W. (2d) 538,
decided December 22, 1932, in which the above quoted House
Bill No. 220, and House Bill No. 25 are discussed, and in
which the Court said:
We are in accord with the hold-
ing of the Court of Civil Appeals, in
this case, to the effect that the two
acts mentioned, having been passed at
the same session of the Legislature,
and both comprehending the matter of
authority in the county board of school
trustees to change boundary lines of
common school districts, should be con-
strued together as being supplementary
to each other in the last-named respect.
So construing said acts together leads
to the conclusioh that the Legislature
intended the provision for notice and
hearing, contained in section 2 of
House Bill 220, to operate as a limi-
tation of the authority conferred on
the county board by the other act, so
far as a change in the boundary lines
of a common school district is involved.
Compliance with said provision was pre-
requisite to the exercise by the county
board of school trustees of Young County,
of authority to change the boundary lines
of the Bullock Common School District,
and, since there was no such compliance,
the order for such change was unauthorized
and therefore is invalid."
In view of the fact that this case decides this
question directly and is the latest authority, we will not
review the various other cases that dealvrith these stat-
utes and touch this question indirectly, because we have
the same feeling about these cases, as well as all school
law cases in general, that Justice Valthall had in the case
of Saragosa Independent School District vs. County Trustees
of Reeves County, 53 S. W. (2d) 1028, when he said:
We think it would be more confus-
idg than enlightening to review the sev-
eral holdings of the courts . . .*
. .
.a.-
Honorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 6
In the question before us the County Board of
School Trustees of Falls County had no authority to change
the boundary lines between the two common school districts
involved except in the manner prescribed by statute. There-
fore, nur answer to your question is that according to the
facts given us the boundary line under the field notes of
1895 is the correct boundary line between the two districts.
Yours very truly
ATTOIiRTEY
Gi!!NERAL
OF TEXAS
BY
Cecil C. Rotsch
Assistant
CCR:FG
APROVED Aug. 7, 1939
GERALD C. U.NN
ATTO-RNEYGEISJRALOF TEXAS
Approved:
OPINIOK COMMITTEE
By RXF, Chairman