E A~~ORNEYGENERAL 

OF 'FlEXAS 

Hoa. Clan lb VmZandt 

County and Diatriat Attorney 

Qrayson Couaiq 

Sheman, Texas 

Dear Sir: opinion No. O-6868 

Ra: Authority of oounty board of truateer of Gmyson County to detaah a portion of the territory of Soutimayd Cm 

molt Sahool District and anned it to 

Dorahester Independent School Dintriot, 

He are in receipt of your letter of recent data requesting &)I ~&$&r 

fromthis depW+mont OII tha l lmvo etated mtter, aracmp&ed by 8 l&t~r ad. 

dressed to you frun the roumty tohool auperinteadorrg of Graymn CQIJ&J?. TQ~ 

letter from thm sow&y 8ohooI mpsriatondoat attach& to your requoat row& 

am fOllmw!I 

“On &rob 86, 1646 WI 0lsoU021~~o hd.d ia Phrsaat Qdm SohoOt Dir- 

@iat Ne. 61 is drtormlno wh+thrr or mot Plomaat Horns Comma Bahoo3. Piatriot 

NQ* 61 should oonrolldato with Bouthmyd Comnon Sohool Dirtriot No. 117. 

%a tho awe day 8outhwyd Gohool Dlatrlot No* 117 votod oa raid ocmro%idrtlom. 

“The voter gollrd In Plarrwt Ham were 48, 30 for ooarolidation and 

18 votar rgrlnlt ooaaolidation. The voter aaef la Southmayd woro 54, all 

for oomolidrtloa - rmo agohat. 

“Dorohrrtrr DWbriot No. 2IS ham, UPW prtitior rignrd by pWlO83. livlag ln,.oad prrmw owning propert in a port of Plmraat IIorpr Dlrtrirt No. 

61, requort*dtho Qrayeon Couaty Sohool Bow4 to dotroh l p nr b ëdth r íta r Stow of thr original Ploarant Hama Dbtrirt and rtrtaok to Dwohortrr #3. 

“The quartiosi lnvolvrd~ ‘Door the County Board hare tiuthoritpr bo mrko 

detuobnont Imr Bouthnmyd Oonaol$datod Sohool Dietdot Ibe 117 and attaoh 

to DorohoBtbr District h SST” 

It in our underrtaading,‘from the abve quoted lettor and from a 

reoent oonfaraaoo with Xr. Ray Be Short, County Bohool Bupsrintendent of 

Graynon County, that the Plarrant HOBO Common Eohool Distriot No. 61 aad 

the 8outbmayd coxanom Sahocl Dlrtriot No. 117 have been duly ad logalfy 

oonrolidatod and that the territory formerly oanprlsing the original two 

diatriets am oompri8ar the territory of a logally oonM.tuted nuw 
lion. Olan 8. VenZaudt, page 2 (O-6868) 

Consolidated 

conmcn school district known as Southma@/Ccamncn School District. We undarstand further that you desire our opinion as tc whether the Counti School 

Board of' Grayson County is authorized to detach a portion of the Southmayd 

Consolidated Consnon School District aad annex such territory to the Dorchester Independe~o~rict. 

The case of County SC 001 Trustees of Orange County V. District 

Trustees of Prairie View Ccmmcn ohool District No. 8, 137 T. 125, 153 S.W. 

2d 434, inrrolved the question of-the authority of the County School Board to 

detach a portion of the territcry of a ocnmmn school district and annex such 

territory to an indpendent school district. In the opinion the Supreme 

Court pointed out that sn Act of 1936, which proposed to amend Article 2742f, 

was unconstitutional and held that the matter of detaching territory from a 

common school distriot and annexing it to an independent schaol district uas 

governed by Section 2 of Article 27420 and by Section 1 of Article 2742f,- 

construed together. In this connection, the Court said: 

"An examination of our statutes discloses the fact that when we eliminate the 

Act of 1935, this case must be governed by Section 2 of Article 2742e, Acts 

lQ29, 41st Leg., 1st C.S. p. 259, ch~. 109; and Section 1 of Article 2742f, 

Bats 1929, 41st Leg., 1st C.S. p. 106, oh. 47. Board of School Trustees of 

Young County V. Bullock Common Sohocl Dist. No. 12, Tex. Comm. App., 55 S.W. 

2d 538, 539. In the case just cited it was held:* Both of these acts mere 

passed in the year 1929, at the same session of the Legislature; and both 

were in effeot when the change in question was made by the county bard.* 

Further in the opinion it was held: 'It is to 'benoticed that House Bill 25 

concerns school districts generally, whereas the other act has reference to 

common school districts. It is further noted that the first-mentioned act 

contains no provision relative to notice and hearing3 whereas section 2 of 

the other act does.1 Finally the opinion holds: Ws are in accord with the 

holding of the Court of Civil Appeals, in this case, to the effeot that the 

twoacts mentioned, having Men passed at the same session of the Lcgislature, and bth comprehending the matter of authority in the ocunty beard of 

school trustees to change boundary lines of c-on school distriots, should 

be construed together as being supplementary to each other in the lastnamed respect.* As a matte r of convenience to those examining this opinion 

in the fcture, we deem it expedient to quote the two statutes nhioh we think 

govern this case. 

e~Sec. 2. (A%. 2742e) That on and after the passage of this Act 

the County Board of School Trustees in any county in this State shall have 

authority and full power tc create common school districts, to subdivide 

districts, and to change boundary lines of any or all oommon school districts 

legally oarsing under the jurisdiction of the County Board of School Trustees, 

subject to the supervision of the District Court having jurisdiotion over 

the county where the County Board is appointed or elected; provided that 

before any changes may be made in %cunduy lines of school districts the 

trustees of the common school dir&riots affected shall be notified to appeap 

before the County Board for a hearing,and after said hearing, or the date 
_ .,- 

Hon. Olan VanSandt, page 3 (O-6868) 

set for said hearing, the County Board of Trustees may pass such order or 

orders as will carry out the provisions of this Aat? provided, further, that 

the trustees of the districts affeoted may appeal from the deaision of the 

County Board to the Distriot Court.' Aats 1929, 41st Leg., 1st C.S., po 259, 

oh. 109. 

s%o. 1. (Art. 2742f) In each county sf this S-ate, the county 

Board of Trustees shsll have the authority, when duly petitroned as herein 

provided, to detaah from and annex to any sohool distriat territory aontiguous to the common boundary line of the two districts; provided the Board of 

Trustees of the distriot to whiah the annexation is to be made approues, by 

majority vote, the proposed transfer of territory and provided, further, that 

where the territory to be detached exceeds ten per cent (lO$) of the entire 

district the petition must be signed by a majoritg of the trustees of said 

distr,ict in addition to a majority of the qualified voters of the territory 

to be detached. The petition shall give the metes and bounds of the territory to bs detached from the one and added to the other district and must bs 

signed by a majority of the qualified voters residing in the said territory 

so detached. Upon receipt of the said petition, duly signed, and upen notice 

of the approval of the proposed annexation by the Board of Trustees shall pass 

an order transferring the said territory and redefining the boundaries of the 

districts affected by said transfer, the said order to be recorded in the 

Minutes of the County Board of Trustees, provided that no school district 

shall be reduced to an area of less than nine square miles.' Acts 1929, 4lst 

Leg., 1st C.S. p. 106, a. 47." 

~fith further referenae to the statutory p-ovisions relative to the 

netice required and the hearing to be held by the Couu+y Board of Trustees before territory may be transferred from ? c-on school distriat, in the case 

of Board of Trustees of Young County 0. Bullock Cemaon Sohoel Mstriot No. 

12, Tax. Comm. App., 55 S.W. 2d 538, a'bove referred to, the Court said: 

"So construing said a&s togotker leads to the conclusion that the Legislature intended the pra$aion for notice and hearing, contained in section 2 

of &use Bill 220 (Sec. 2, Art. 2742e) to operate as a limitation sf the 

authority conferred on the county board by the other aef (Seo.,l, Art. 

2742f) so far as a change in the buadary lines of a oonmoa school i¶istriot 

is involved. Complianae with said provision was prerequisite to the exercise, 

by the county board of schoel trustees of Young County, of authority to 

ohange the boundary lines of the Bullock Commen School District, and, 

sinoe there was no suoh oomplianae, the order for such ohange was unautherieed and therefore is indireatly to the oourts, in the first instance, for 

relief against said invalid order." (Parenthesis ours) 

m view of the&we and foregoing, you are advised that the 

County Board of Trustees is authorised to detach a portion of the territory 

from a camnon school district and annex said territory to a contiguous independent school distrist, mibjeot to the conditions prescribed by Sectioa 1 
-i . . _ 

Hon. Olan VanZandt, page 4 (-6868) 

of gticle 2742f, and Section 2 of Article 2742~ He point out further 

that the Coun-@ Sahool Board is vested mith the discretion to determine 

whether the power given it by the above mentioned provisions shall be emereised in any given ease. (F'rosper Independent Sohool Distriat V. Collin 

County School Trustees, 51 S.W. 2d 748, affirmed 58 S.11; 2d 5). 

Under the above mentioned statutory provisions, the County Board 

of Trustees of Grayson County would be authorized to detach a portion of the 

Southmayd Consolidated Consnon School Distriot and annex said territory to the 

Dorcboster Independent School M&riot subject to the following conditions: 

&, A petition setting forth the metes and bounds of the territory proposed 

‘,J Ue detached fromthe Southmayd ConaeUdated District signed by a Njority 

of the qualified voters residing in said territory must be submitted to the 

county Board. We aall your attention that the term, "metes and ~boundss is 

defined in Ballentine's Law Diotionary, p. 814 as follows: "The boundary 

lines and corners of a piece of land." In this oonneotion see Grand Lodge 

of the Order of the Sons of Hermann V. Curry, 108 S.W. 2d 5743 Lefler V. 

City of Dallas, 177 S.W. 2d 231. 

(We note further thsn when the territory proposed to be detaohed 

"exoeeds ten veer cent (10%) of the entire District." the above mentioned oetition "must be signed‘by a majority of the Trustees of said Distriat in addition to a majority of the qualified voters of the District to be detached".) 

2... The Board of Trustees of the Dorchester Independent School District must 

approve, by a majority vote, ihe proposed transfer of territory. 

3. "Before any changes may be made in the boundary lines" of the above named 

school districts, the Trustees of the Southmayd Consolidated District "shall 

be notified to appear before the County Board for a hearing." 

4. Upon receipt of a proper petition and ths above mentioned motice of the 

approval of the propesed annexation bythe Board of Trustees of Dorchester 

District, "andafter said hearing, or the date set for said hearing," the 

County Board of Trustees, in its sound discretion, may pass an order transferring the territory from the Southmayd Consolidated district to the Dorchester District and redefine the beund?ries of said districts, "said order 

to be reoorded in the %&es of the County Board of Trustees." 

5. MO district &all be reduoed to an area of less'thu nine (9) euuare miles. 

We point out further that the"trustees of the districts affected may apyaal from 

the decision of the County Board to the Distriot Court." 

&PROVED KAY 4, 1946 

/s/ Carlo8 Ashley 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNFY GSNSSAL 

JAS:djmr egm 

Yours very truly 

ATTORSSYGENSRALOF TEW 

By /s/J. A. Ellis 

J. A.Sllis 

Assistant