### THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

Hon. Walter Murchison County Attorney ginion No. O-2493 : Moving buildings from one Haskell County elementary district to another Haskell, Texas within aRural High School District D Dear Sir:
Weare in receipt of your letter of June 25, 1940, requesting anopinion by this Department which reads in part as follows: "As it has been presented to methe facts in this case are as follows: ThePleasant View Common School District was, in 1938, grouped with the Weinert Independent School District and several other commonschool districts to form Weinert Rural High School District after anelection held for that purpose. Since that time andfor about twoyears 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 andwere approximately 35 pupils attending the Weinert School from the Pleasant View CommonSchool 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 formerly used for elementary school purposes in the Pleasant View District to Weinert that it be there used to supplement the housing facilities nowavailable. "There would seemto be no prior agreement or contract such as is mentioned in Chastain v. Mauldin, 32SW(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, towit, Weinert, for elementary school purposes andtheHon. Walter Murchison, page 2 

### (O-2493)

Rural High School District Board of Trustees order it discontinued andremove the buildlng, all of this without anelection.” Please accept our thanks for the helpful brief and discussion accompanying your letter of request.

Thematerial 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 amajority of the qualified electors residing in such elementary district; provided that when any school within an elementary district fails to have anaverage daily attendan.ce the preceding year of at least twenty pupils it maybe discontinued bythe board of trustees of said rural high school district, and said district maybe consolidated bythe county board of school trustees with someother district or districts for elementary school purposes.”Aswe construe the above statute the county board may not abolish or consolidate anelementary district without an elect ion, unless the average daily attendance for the preceding year is less th.an20andthe 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) 5S.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,orabolished by the county school trustees except upon avote 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 proviso above quoted are met, no election is necessary to,authorize the respective boards of trustees to discontinue the elementary school and consolidate the elementary district with another elementary district for elementary school purposes.Hon. Walter Murchison, page 

### 3 (O-249,31

235, In Chastai.n v. Mauldfn, (T.C.A,, 1930) 32S.W.(2d)

“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 ‘40another, 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. Adistinction might be drawn between this case andthe facts presented byyou in that here the boards of trustees propose to follow the statutes in effecting discontinuance a.ndconsolidation before takin.g any action with reference to the ‘building.

Wethink the following language in Chastain v. Mauldin, supra, fs signi?fcant b

“The pofint AL

s,.,;,-dein z;:pellees brfef that the bufldfng mayUt;yeturned or aNWone erected whenever the necessity arfses, ‘Thetrustees of the grouped di.strict have ‘the management andcontrol of the building in questfon, aridwedonot hold that they are wi.tnout azthorfty under proper safeguards for its return or replacement to remove it temporarily to the Grosvenor distrfct. Tha,tquestion, however, fs not presented by the pleadings or proof before us. The case as madeby 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

‘Wecal.1 attenti~on to Article 2.922a, H.C.S., 

### 1975,which provides that upon the abolition of the rural high school district 9the elemen,tary districts shall return to the1.r original status. Somequ.est,ion. migh,t be raised as to ,theproperty rights of the resptc,rtYve districts in the event of adissolution, wh,ere the property originally belongfng to one district hadbeen moved to another 9although aconsclldation withi,n the rural high school district for elementary purposes had been ordered.

It appears from your letter that after the discontinuance of the school andthe consolidation of the district with another by the County Board, the rural high school trustees wish to supplement housing facilities in another andnofacts are submitted which indicate that the board maynot adequately accomplish its purpose under the exception mentioned in Chastain vs. Mauldin, supra. Weare of tne opinion that this is a.matter falling within the authority granted such board but weare further of the opinion that proper provision shoul,d be madeby the rural high school board to preserve andprotect the property rights of any affected district. This is especially true because of the uncertain andHon. Walter tirchison, page 4 (O-2493)

unsettled status of the case law upon this andrelated questions. Yours very truly
ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFT&US By/s/ Cecil C. Cammaok Cecil C. Cammack, Assistant
APPROVED

JUL8, 1940 /s/ Glenn R. Lewis (Acting) ATTORNEY GENERAL

OFTEXAS APPROVED:OPINIONCOMMITTEE BY: BWB,CHAIRMAN