OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonamble T. M. Trlablo, Xkrb Amiotmt 

Btate Suporlntrnbnt Or r*blio Imtruotlon 

AWOln, TOxa8 
BoOorrrbl0 T. k. Trlmbla, page #r 

tIm oorl6iolidatlon, in0lul. mOC8 than tb0 terrltorf lnoluded wlthln the bouularira of tho Cltf 

of whitowr1&ht9* 

It is within tlm paru of th0 L0glOlaturO to out&x1.0 oltloa or tow.. wh lo l h onatltoa. lnbopanbmt l aho6t dlatrlata to extend tbk tounduloa for l oheol purpoaaa. Moosl oholl T. City of lbaaglo Lake (Cl+. App.) SW 8. W. 990, l xror 

~~0041 aitf 0r leasl0 ta ‘I. ubaide Rio0 wi ah, (oh. 

Am.) 111, S. W. 9lS, orro~ rafumed; City OS I%&. Lab t. 

If.Mtdt~' wylu Raflnlrq Co., (Clr. App.) 144 3. w. 909, l r x o x 

ln Artlila 

~h0 ~4 g i0i0tuhr0 ~ 00 p tia 4 d t0r th is pro w0 

SSOS of @ia Beriaob Clrll St.tutea of Taua, vtblah 

xoada as followar 

y ba owad or OOQtmoted by ouoh en QP oitr. l!ha property of tha 

add06 tarrloorg ahedl bau its pro rata prt of alI 

8ehool tares, but ai rs' otbar tams. The asldod t&X+ 

rltory shall not airrot the oltg'a dabta or bualneaa 

r0latloos in On9 mmwr whatuu, erwpt fox aohool 

purpoaaa as provlda4 abava. The oHloara whaaa duty 

It la to aOO0aO and oollsot l lrhool taxes within tha 

olty 1lmlta ObaU alao’uaao.a and ool.lsat aoil0ol taxes within the territogj l a do d for aohool purpoaoa .a 

hcreln provl&.d.’ ktlnderscoring ours). 
Istlcls 8804, Revised Civil 3tcntutea or Texas, the 

conatitutlonalltp of whloh baa been upheld (City or Ho?aatoa 

'I. Todd (Clr. App.) S76 S. W. 419),proyldes that uhmeru 

tba llinit8 of e oft9 Whioh oonatltuto8 a5 lndapendsnl+ school 

dlatrlot are extended or wlargad ao es to inoludo l dj4mont 

lnde ndent school dlatriota or oommon aohool dlatrlotg,bha 

tar rr tory so lnoludad *shall hermitor baoomo a pera ad partlon of the independent aohool dlatrlat oonstltuted by awh 

lnoorporatad olty or town." City OS Houston v. Todd, 8upra. 

Artlole 8808, Roylrod Civil Statutaa, fires the Usbility of the city for It8 ~roportlon of the bonded lndobtrdnua of the Ul8trlot anaued to the oitg. 

In Euhn v. City of Toakus, 859 8. Vi. 839, It ma objootd that Revised Clyll. Statutes, 1911, Artlole m (I&- 

rlaod Clrll Statutes, lQSS, Mlolea SSC8, et sag.) woo unoonatitutlonal la that it authorlaed property to b8 l & ¶o Cto 

an ailatlng 8ohool diatrlot and, nitbout an eleotlon by tha 

persona affroted, &a48 their propert in the aaWl turltmry 

liable for its *pro rata* p8rt or the crlatlng lnbebtodnoaa 

of the dietdot. It was held that whcro a majority OS the 

naldenta of the added trrrltory petition ror an addltlon to 

the olty for aohool purposes only, they cannot otmpla111 booeuae no elaotlon la hold to detomlna whether the adbad~turltorr rlll pa9 its pro rata 8kmrn Of till6 erietill& dabta of th* 

annuing dirtriot. 

Cn the queatlon of the 00-n aahool dlatrlot bmla(l in 

tno oountlea, this dopartnmnt, we think, oorreotly hold la 

I.919 that a olty OP town my extead it8 limit0 for who01 pum- 

~poaea only without regard to oounty llelta, 

Ia tlsw of the foragolng dlamaalon, It lo our oplnlwh 

that the City of Whitewright., ruoh l-ma a8aumed aontPo1 ai lt0 

l ehoola, ma9 extend it8 alty llmltr for rehool purposes only 

to lnolud4 the adfaoont OOUUQO~ aohool dfOtd.et, uador the authority of Article RSCS, Reylad Civil Statutaa, and th8 bend tar 

wl1.l bo spread over the 4ntiro di8trfet a0 proridod for in 

~tloloa fmfX3 and 8808 of the Refvlood Civil StetuteO. 
Honorable 3'. X. TrimBls, pago ir 

Trusting that thie aaswua your queetlon, we are