OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Bonamble T. M. **Trlablo,** Xkrb Amiotmt Btate Suporlntrnbnt Or r*blio Imtruotlon AWOln, TOxa8BoOorrrbl0 T. k. Trlmbla, page #r

tIm oorl6iolidatlon, in0lul. mOC8 than tb0 terrltorf lnoludedwlthln the bouularira of tho Cltf of whitowr1&ht9*

It is within tlm paru of th0 L0glOlaturO to out&x

### 1.0 oltloa or tow.. w h loh l 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 rxox ln Artlila ~h0

~4 g i0i0tur~

h0 00

ptia4d t0 r

thisprow0 SSOS of 

### @iaBeriaob 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 

### oHloarawhaaa duty It la to aOO0aO and oollsot llrhool taxes within tha olty 1lmlta ObaU alao’uaao.a and ool.lsataoil0oltaxes within the territogj l adod 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),proyldesthat 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 tory so lnoludad *shall hermitor baoomo a pera ad parrr tlon of the independentaohool 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 Ul8trlotanaued 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 authorlaedproperty to b8 l &¶oCt o an ailatlng 8ohool diatrlotand, 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 trrrltorypetition ror an addltlon to the olty for aohool purposes only, they cannot otmpla111**bo** oeuae 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 queatlonof the 00-n aahool dlatrlot**bmla(l** in **tno** oountlea, this dopartnmnt, we think, oorreotlyhold la I.919 that a olty OP town my extead it8 limit0 for who01 pum- ~poaea only without regard to oountyllelta,

Ia tlsw of the foragolngdlamaalon, 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