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 a Rural High School District D 

Dear Sir: 

We are in receipt of your letter of June 25, 1940, 

requesting an opinion by this Department which reads in part 

as follows: 

"As it has been presented to me the facts in 

this case are as follows: The Pleasant View Common 

School District was, in 1938, grouped with the 

Weinert Independent School District and several 

other common school districts to form Weinert Rural 

High School District after an election held for that 

purpose. Since that time and for about two years 

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 and were approximately 35 pupils attending the Weinert School from 

the Pleasant View Common School 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 now available. 

"There would seem to be no prior agreement or 

contract such as is mentioned in Chastain v. Mauldin, 

32 SW (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 and the 
Hon. Walter Murchison, page 2 (O-2493) 

Rural High School District Board of Trustees 

order it discontinued and remove the buildlng, 

all of this without an election.” 

Please accept our thanks for the helpful brief and 

discussion accompanying your letter of request. 

The material 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 a majority of the qualified electors residing in such elementary district; provided that when any school within an 

elementary district fails to have an average 

daily attendan.ce the preceding year of at least 

twenty pupils it may be discontinued by the board 

of trustees of said rural high school district, 

and said district may be consolidated by the 

county board of school trustees with some other 

district or districts for elementary school purposes.” 

As we construe the above statute the county board may 

not abolish or consolidate an elementary district without 

an elect ion, unless the average daily attendance for the preceding year is less th.an 20 and the 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) 5 S.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,or abolished by the 

county school trustees except upon a vote 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) 32 S.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 ‘40 another, 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. A distinction might 

be drawn between this case and the facts presented by you in 

that here the boards of trustees propose to follow the statutes 

in effecting discontinuance a.nd consolidation before takin.g any 

action with reference to the ‘building. 

We think the following language in Chastain v. Mauldin, 

supra, fs signi?fcant b 

“The p ofin t AL s ,.,;,-de in z;:pellees brfef that the 

bufldfng may Ut; yeturned or a NW one erected whenever the necessity arfses, ‘The trustees of the 

grouped di.strict have ‘the management and control 

of the building in questfon, arid we do not hold 

that they are wi.tnout azthorfty under proper safeguards for its return or replacement to remove it 

temporarily to the Grosvenor distrfct. Tha,t question, however, fs not presented by the pleadings 

or proof before us. The case as made by 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 

‘We cal.1 attenti~on to Article 2.922a, H.C.S., 1975, which 

provides that upon the abolition of the rural high school 

district 9 the elemen,tary districts shall return to the1.r original 

status. Some qu.est,ion. migh,t be raised as to ,the property rights 

of the resptc,rtYve districts in the event of a dissolution, wh,ere 

the property originally belongfng to one district had been moved 

to another 9 although a consclldation 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 and the consolidation of the district with 

another by the County Board, the rural high school trustees wish 

to supplement housing facilities in another and no facts are submitted which indicate that the board may not adequately accomplish 

its purpose under the exception mentioned in Chastain vs. Mauldin, 

supra. We are of tne opinion that this is a. matter falling within 

the authority granted such board but we are further of the opinion that proper provision shoul,d be made by the rural high school 

board to preserve and protect the property rights of any affected 

district. This is especially true because of the uncertain and 
Hon. Walter tirchison, page 4 (O-2493) 

unsettled status of the case law upon this and related questions. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T&US 

By /s/ Cecil C. Cammaok 

Cecil C. Cammack, Assistant 

APPROVED JUL 8, 1940 

/s/ Glenn R. Lewis 

(Acting) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN