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~you have 

Stated that the board of trustees of an Independent school 

district engaged the services of some additional school 

teachers to fill positions which the board declared had been 

vacated by other teachers. In less than a month after this 

action was taken, an election ,in the district, pursuant to 

the provisions of Article 2767, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

abolished the independent district. 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 

district was to cancel the teaching contracts awarded to 

the replacement teachers by the board of trustees for the 

former independent school district. You have asked the 

question as to the validity of the teaching contract8 in 

the light of the order of cancellation. 

School districts are "quasi municipal corporations.' Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 

26 (1931). 

11 

. under the well 

equity: when the same, 

established rule of 

or s,ubstantially the same, 

inhabitants form a new corporation with 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 152 S.W.2d 400, 

403 (Tex.Civ.App. 1941, error ref.j. 

~The board of trustees of the independent school 

district was authorized to contract with the teachers it employed. Article 2781, V.C.S. Those contracts created a 
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (S-162) 

liability against the independent school.district. Campbell 

v. Jones, 264 S.W:2d 425 (Tex.Sup; 1954); Rocky Mo,unt I.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 district was abolished by election the common school 

district succeeded to all the assets of the former district, 

and likewise became liable for all the obligation8 of 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 mutual mistake, 

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 circumstance8 described in your request 

the contracts of the teachers legally employed by the board 

of trustees of the independent school district were not affected by the abolition of the independent school 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 district was ineffective to 

cancel the teaching contracts. Consequently, the teacher8 

are still employed by the school district for the remaining 

term of their contracts. 

SUMMARY 

A School district succeeding to the same 

boundaries held by a former school district 

assumes the assets and obligation8 of the former district. Teaching contract8 of the former 

district remain as continuing obligation8 of the 

succeeding district. 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr 

Count?? Affairs Division 

Yours very truly, 

JOHN BEN 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