**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

AUSTIN

Honorable Chas. E. Reegan District Attorney Falls.County Marlin, Texas

Dear Sir:

field noteswas 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 sevenhundred acres of land was taken from the latter district and added to the UcCollum district. Your letter continuesas follows:

"Theminutes of the County Board of Trustees of Rev. 5, 1932, page 209 readHonorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 2

as follows: 'TheCounty Boardmet in calledmeetingNov, 5 with all members present. Boundaries of all schooldistricts in the countywere re-established and redefinedaccording to the field notes recorded in Book 1, DistrictRecord of Schools, on pages ----.* Theminutes
are signed by Miss Lois Souther as County School Superintendentand Secretary of the Board, but are not signed by the president of the board.

. . "The boundary lines given by these rield notes correspondwith those given by the field notes of 1895 except on the N. E. corner of the districtwhere six or seven hundred acres of land VMS taken
rrom the Glade ChapelDistrict and added to the McCollum District. However,even though the field notes of 1932 showa change in the N. E. boundary line, the line given by the field notes of 1895 has always been used as the correctbounaary. In fact no one in either the Glade
or McCollum Districts knew of any change having been-madeuntil 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'isthe field notes of 1932, compiledby Mr. Harris. The McCollum trustees contendthat the County Board made the change in 1932 when they approved the field notes compiledby Vx. Harris. The Glade Chapel trustees contend that the minutes of the Commissioners' Court and the county boarddo not show a change had ever been legallymade and that the county board did not have the authority tomake the change in 1932 even if that
was their intention;

. . . *Under these conditions,which, in your opinion, is the correctboundaryHonorable Chae. E. Reagan, Page 3

line between these two districts; the
one givenby the original field notes of 1895 or the one givenby the field notes of 1932 as compiledby &. Harris and approvedby the CountyBoard of Trustees?"

We hove omitted themetes and bounds descriptions from the Commissionerst Court records of 1895, and from the "Record of Schools" of 1932,which you quote at' great length,because we do.not think they arematerial in arriving at our answer to your question,

In 1932 there were two statutes in effect that control the answer to this question,and thosewere Section 2 of Rouse Bill No. 220, Forty-rirstLegislature, First Called Session (Article2742e), and Section 1 of House Bill No. 25, Forty-first Legislature,First Called Session (Article 2742f). House Bill No. 25 has sincebeen amended, which is immaterial to this discussion.

Section 2 of saidHouse 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 subdividedistricts, and to changeboundary lines of any or allCommon SchoolDistricts legally comingunder the jurisdictionof the County Board of SchoolTrustees, subject to the supervision of the District Court having jurisdictionover the countywhere the County Board is appointed or elected; provided thatbefore any changesmay be made in boundary l.ines of school districts the trustees of the Common School Districts affected shallbe notified to appear before the County Board for a hearing, and after said hearing, or the date set for saidhearing, the County Board of Trustees may pass such order or orders as will carry out the provisions of thisAct; provided, further, that the trustees of the districts affectedmay 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, readas follows:

"In each county of this State the County Board of Trustees shallhave the authority, when duly petitionedas 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 ~1sto be made approves, by majority vote, the proposed transfer of territoryand provided, furthere, thatwhere the territory to be detached exceeds ten per cent (105)of the entiredistrict the petitionmust be signedby a majority of the trustees of saiddistrict in addition to a majority of the qualifiedvoters of the territory to be detached. The petition shall give themetes and bounds of the territory to be detached from the one and added to the other district andmust be signed by a majority of the qualifiedvoters residing in the said territory so detached. Upon receipt of the said petition, duly signed,and upon notice of the approval of the proposed annexationby the Board of Trustees of the district to which the territory is tobe added, the County Board of Trustees shallpass an order transferringthe 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 squaremiles."

It will be noticed that in 1932 House Bill No. 220 (Article27420) specificallyprovided that Wbefore any changesmay be made inboundary 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 schooldistricts COUid beHonorable Chas. E. Reagan, Page 5

valid, and thisview is eupported by the opinion in the
case 

### OS Board 

### of School 

### TrusteesofYoungCountyvs.EMlock Common School District (Comm.App.), 55 S. W. (2d) 538, decided December 22, 1932, inwhich the above quotedHouse Bill No. 220, and House Bill No. 

### 25are discussed, and in which the Court said:

We are in accord with the holding of the Court of CivilAppeals, in this case, to the effect that the two actsmentioned, having been passed at the same session of the Legislature, and 

### both comprehending thematter of authority in the county board of school trustees to changeboundary lines of
common schooldistricts, shouldbe construed together as being supplementary to each other in the last-namedrespect. So construing saidacts 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 conferredon the countyboard by the other act, so far as a change in the boundary lines of a common 

### schooldistrict is involved. Compliancewith said provisionwas 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 casedecides this questiondirectly and is the latest authority,we will not review the various other cases that dealvrith these statutes and touch this question indirectly,becausewe have the same feeling about these cases, as well as all school law cases in general, that JusticeValthallhad in the case of Saragosa IndependentSchool District vs. County Trustees of Reeves County, 53 S. W. (2d)1028, when he said:

We think itwould 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 SchoolTrustees of Falls County had no authority to change the boundary linesbetween the two common schooldistricts involved except in the manner prescribedby 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 correctboundary linebetween 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

GEISJRALOF TEXAS

Approved: OPINIOKCOMMITTEE By RXF, Chairman