OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Juywy 87, 1939
%onorablo L. A. Wooda
State supsrintonaent of
Publio Instruotioa
huatia, Taxa8
___.__- ___- -. .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 Superintendentis a
00miy 0rf i0er.
Y---Q--J 6% eta are a eubdivlelonOS
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*8Court have not the
authority to judlolallydetermine a rWt
of one to an otfioe or to remove a legally
qualified officer from his ofrioa, for the
jurlsdlotlonl~~thlr matter 110s within tha
exoluslre cognizanceof the Dietriot Courfhw
Ellln~er vs. Ranklm, 89 8. W., 840.
Thie holdinp:is supportedby 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
authority jwlioially,to daterml.nathe right
o? onm to an offtoe or to remove a legally
qualified officer from offioe, the
dlotfon in,thla matter 110s within E&i3i*a
oognlseaoaof tha Distriot Gourt.*
In view or the faota, OYOXIthou&h, that ln adztin-
lstratlve netters the State Superintendentmust bm
appaa$ed to in 80818instanoes before reooureo can bs
had to Couxtt hthe&(l.as a matter of law that any
prooeadlngshad, or hearing held betore a Stat0 Super-
intendentot Publio Instruotlon,regardin& a removal-
nor an ettespt to remove a County SuperintendentSrom
would be void
oSTloe4,, ana of,no foroe and effeot.
Yours very truly
G3B:GFS