June 29, 1955

Honorable J. W. Commissioner of Texas Education Austin, Texas

Dear Dr. Edgar: Edgar

Education Agency Opinion No. S-162 Re: Effect of abolishment of an independent 8ChOOl district on existing teacher employment contracts.
In requesting the opinion of this office~youhave Stated that the board of trustees of an Independent school district engaged the services of some additional school teachers to fill positionswhich the board declaredhad been vacatedby other teachers. In less than a month after this actionwas taken, an election ,inthe district,pursuant to the provisionsof Article 2767, Vernon's Civil Statutes, abolished the independentdistrict. The county board of school trustees then created a common school district containing the same area comprised in the former independent school district,and appointed a three member board of trustees for the new common school district. One of the first acts of the board of trustees of the common school districtwas to cancel the teaching contractsawarded to the replacement teachersby the board of trustees for the former independentschool district. You have asked the question as to the validity of the teaching contract8 in the light of the order of cancellation.

School districtsare "quasimunicipal corporations.' Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 26 (1931).

11

.under the well equity:when the same, establishedrule of or s,ubstantially

the same, inhabitants form a new corporationwith the same territorial limits, the new corporation is treated as the successoK of the old and Subject to its.liabillties. Young v. City of Colorado, 174 S.W. 986, 694 [Tex.Civ.App.1915, error ref.) See al80 Rocky Mount I.S.D. v. Jackson 152S.W.2d 400, 403 (Tex.Civ.App.1941, error ref.j. ~Theboard of trustees of the independent school districtwas authorized to contractwith the teachers it employed. Article 2781, V.C.S. Those contracts created aHon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (S-162)

liabilityagainst the independent school.district. Campbell v. Jones, 264 S.W:2d 425 (Tex.Sup;1954); Rocky Mo,untI.S.D. v. Jackson, supra; Fikes v. Sharp, 112 S.W.2d 774, 777 (Tex. Civ.App. 1938, error ref.); Borger I.S.D. v. Dickson, 52 S.W. 2d 505 (Tex.Civ.App.1932, error ref.). When the independent school districtwas abolishedby election the common school district succeeded to all the assets of the former district, and likewisebecame liable for all the obligation8of the old district. Article 2767c,V.C.S.; Rocky Mount I.S.D. v. Jackson> supra. The teaching contracts could not be revoked without any charge of fraud, imposition,or mutualmistake, and without a hearing given the teacher8 in regard to the intended revocation of their contracts. Miller v. Smiley, 65 S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tex.Civ.App.1933, error ref.).

Under the circumstance8described in your request the contracts of the teachers legally employedby the board of trustees of the independent school districtwere not affected by the abolition of the independentschool district and the subsequent creation of the common school district comprising the same,boundaries. The action of the board of trustee8 of the common school districtwas ineffectiveto cancel the teaching contracts. Consequently, the teacher8 are still employedby the school district for the remaining term of their contracts. SUMMARY

A School district succeeding to the same boundariesheld by a former school district assumes the assets and obligation8of the former district. Teaching contract8 of the former districtremain as continuingobligation8of the succeedingdistrict.
APPROVED: J. C. Davis, Jr Count??

Affairs Division Yours very truly, JOHNBEN SHEPPERD William W. Guild Attorney General Reviewer J. A. Amis, Jr. Reviewer Robert S. Trotti BY First ASSiStant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General
BEL:zt AiSiStant