OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Chas. E. Reegan 

District Attorney 

Falls. County 

Marlin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

field notes was discovered at the time they were compiled, 

but In 1939 it was discovered that the new field notes made 

a change in the boundary line between McCollum Common 

School District and Slade Chapel Common School District so 

that six or seven hundred acres of land was taken from the 

latter district and added to the UcCollum district. Your 

letter continues as follows: 

"The minutes of the County Board of 

Trustees of Rev. 5, 1932, page 209 read 
Honorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 2 

as follows: 'The County Board met in 

called meeting Nov, 5 with all members 

present. Boundaries of all school districts in the county were re-established 

and redefined according to the field 

notes recorded in Book 1, District Record 

of Schools, on pages ----.* The minutes 

are signed by Miss Lois Souther as County 

School Superintendent and Secretary of 

the Board, but are not signed by the 

president of the board. . . 

"The boundary lines given by these 

rield notes correspond with those given 

by the field notes of 1895 except on the 

N. E. corner of the district where six or 

seven hundred acres of land VMS taken 

rrom the Glade Chapel District and added 

to the McCollum District. However, even 

though the field notes of 1932 show a 

change in the N. E. boundary line, the 

line given by the field notes of 1895 

has always been used as the correct bounaary. In fact no one in either the Glade 

or McCollum Districts knew of any change 

having been-made until recently. A few 

weeks past the trustees of the McCollum 

District read the 1932 field notes and 

noticed the change in the N. E. boundary 

line, and are now contending for the aaaitional territory. 

" . The only record that shows 

any chenie'is the field notes of 1932, 

compiled by Mr. Harris. The McCollum 

trustees contend that the County Board 

made the change in 1932 when they approved 

the field notes compiled by Vx. Harris. 

The Glade Chapel trustees contend that 

the minutes of the Commissioners' Court 

and the county board do not show a change 

had ever been legally made and that the 

county board did not have the authority 

to make the change in 1932 even if that 

was their intention; . . . 

*Under these conditions, which, in 

your opinion, is the correct boundary 
Honorable Chae. E. Reagan, Page 3 

line between these two districts; the 

one given by the original field notes 

of 1895 or the one given by the field 

notes of 1932 as compiled by &. Harris 

and approved by the County Board of Trustees?" 

We hove omitted the metes and bounds descriptions from the Commissioners t Court records of 1895, and 

from the "Record of Schools" of 1932, which you quote at' 

great length, because we do.not think they are material 

in arriving at our answer to your question, 

In 1932 there were two statutes in effect that 

control the answer to this question, and those were Section 

2 of Rouse Bill No. 220, Forty-rirst Legislature, First 

Called Session (Article 2742e), and Section 1 of House Bill 

No. 25, Forty-first Legislature, First Called Session (Article 2742f). House Bill No. 25 has since been amended, 

which is immaterial to this discussion. 

Section 2 of said House Ml1 NO. 220 (Article 

2742e), in 1932, read as follows: 

"Sec. 2. 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 to create 

Common School Districts, to subdivide districts, and to change boundary lines of 

any or allCommon School Districts legally coming under the jurisdiction of the 

County Board of School Trustees, subject 

to the supervision of the District Court 

having jurisdiction over the county where 

the County Board is appointed or elected; 

provided that before any changes may be 

made in boundary l.ines of school districts the trustees of the Common School 

Districts affected shall be notified to 

appear before the County Board for a hearing, and after said hearing, or the date 

set for said hearing, the County Board of 

Trustees may pass such order or orders as 

will carry out the provisions of this Act; 

provided, further, that the trustees of 

the districts affected may appeal from the 

decision of the County Board to the District Court." 
Honorable C&s. i;. Reagan, Fage 4 

Section 1 of said Bousc Bill No. 25 (Article 

2742f), in 1932, read as follows: 

"In each county of this State the 

County Board of Trustees shall have 

the authority, when duly petitioned as 

herein provided, to detach from and annex to any school district territory 

contiguous to the common 'boundary line 

of the two districts; provided the 

Board of Trustees of the district to 

which the annexation ~1s to be made approves, by majority vote, the proposed 

transfer of territory and provided, furthere, that where the territory to be detached exceeds ten per cent (105) of the 

entire district the petition must be 

signed by a majority of the trustees of 

said district 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 

be detached from the one and added to 

the other district and must be signed 

by a majority of the qualified voters 

residing in the said territory so detached. Upon receipt of the said petition, duly signed, and upon notice of the 

approval of the proposed annexation by 

the Board of Trustees of the district to 

which the territory is to be added, the 

County Board of Trustees shall pass an 

order transferring the said territory 

and redefining the boundaries of the districts affected by said transfer, the sala 

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." 

It will be noticed that in 1932 House Bill No. 

220 (Article 27420) specifically provided that Wbefore any 

changes may be made in boundary lines of school districts 

the trustees of the Common School Districts affected shall 

be notified to appear before the County Board for a hearing." '6~ think that it was absolutely necessary that this 

provision be complied r*ith before the changing of the 

boundary line between two common school districts COUid be 
Honorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 5 

valid, and this view is eupported by the opinion in the 

case OS Board of School Trustees of Young County vs. EMlock Common School District (Comm. App.), 55 S. W. (2d) 538, 

decided December 22, 1932, in which the above quoted House 

Bill No. 220, and House Bill No. 25 are discussed, and in 

which the Court said: 

We are in accord with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals, in 

this case, to the effect that the two 

acts mentioned, having been passed at 

the same session of the Legislature, 

and both comprehending the matter of 

authority in the county board of school 

trustees to change boundary lines of 

common school districts, should be construed together as being supplementary 

to each other in the last-named respect. 

So construing said acts together leads 

to the conclusioh that the Legislature 

intended the provision for notice and 

hearing, contained in section 2 of 

House Bill 220, to operate as a limitation of the authority conferred on 

the county board by the other act, so 

far as a change in the boundary lines 

of a common school district is involved. 

Compliance with said provision was prerequisite to the exercise by the county 

board of school trustees of Young County, 

of authority to change the boundary lines 

of the Bullock Common School District, 

and, since there was no such compliance, 

the order for such change was unauthorized 

and therefore is invalid." 

In view of the fact that this case decides this 

question directly and is the latest authority, we will not 

review the various other cases that dealvrith these statutes and touch this question indirectly, because we have 

the same feeling about these cases, as well as all school 

law cases in general, that Justice Valthall had in the case 

of Saragosa Independent School District vs. County Trustees 

of Reeves County, 53 S. W. (2d) 1028, when he said: 

We think it would be more confusidg than enlightening to review the several holdings of the courts . . .* 
. . 

.a.- 

Honorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 6 

In the question before us the County Board of 

School Trustees of Falls County had no authority to change 

the boundary lines between the two common school districts 

involved except in the manner prescribed by statute. Therefore, nur answer to your question is that according to the 

facts given us the boundary line under the field notes of 

1895 is the correct boundary line between the two districts. 

Yours very truly 

ATTOIiRTEY Gi!!NERAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

Cecil C. Rotsch 

Assistant 

CCR:FG 

APROVED Aug. 7, 1939 

GERALD C. U.NN 

ATTO-RNEY GEISJRAL OF TEXAS 

Approved: 

OPINIOK COMMITTEE 

By RXF, Chairman