December 12, 1947 

Hon. L. A. Woods, State Superintendent 

State Department of Education 

Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-452. 

Re: Jurisdiction of 

the State Superintendent of an 

appeal from the 

decision of a 

county board 

transferring a 

portion of one 

school district 

to another. 

Dear Sir: 

Your letter and statement attached reflect 

that upon a petition signed by a majority of the qualified voters in the area detached, the County Board of 

School Trustees of Colorado County entered an order 

transferring a portion of the Consolidated Eagle Lake 

Independent School District to the Columbus Independent 

School District. The territory transferred was less 

than 10% of the Eagle Lake District. The Eagle Lake 

District, being dissatisfied with the action of the County Board, has appealed to you, the State Superintendent. 

The Columbus District and the County Board have filed 

with you a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground 

that you have no jurisdiction to hear the case. You 

have asked us to advise you whether you have such jurisdiction. 

In 1920, the Texas Supreme Court, acting 

through its Commission of Appeals, decided the case of 

Jenninps L. Carson, 220 S.W. 1090. There, in a dispute 

over a schooldistrict boundary line similar to the 

present one, appeal was taken directly from the county 

board to the District Court under the statute which provided that the District Court shall have general supervisory control of the actions of the county board in 

creatin 

8' 

changing, and modifying school districts. (Now 

Art. 26 2). 
Hon.' L. A. Woods, Page 2, V-452. 

Notwithstanding that statute, it was held that 

appeal must be taken first to the State Superintendent, 

~The Court held that the above statute was applicable after appeal had been made within the school system itself, 

The decision was based upon what is now Article 2656, 

which provides in part: 

"The State Superintendent shall be 

charged with the administration of the 

school laws and the general superintendency of the business relating to the public schools of the State O He shall 

hear and determine all appeal: from the 

rulings and decisions of subordinate school 

~officers, s O O 011 (Emphasis added) 

'. 

‘, Yith reference to the above statute the Court 

said: ., 

"The county trustees O o O being subordinate school officers, the language of 

the article quoted is all-inclusive as to 

the appeals from their decisions that shall 

be heard by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. No exception is provided." 

State 

Under this holding of our Supreme Court, the 

Su erintendent 

duty to K 

clearly has the authority and the 

ear such appeal. 

In 1932 the Supreme Court, acting through its 

Commission of Appeals, handed down its decision in State 

Line Consolidated School District v. Farwell, 48 S.7 

T2dJ 616 which made an exception to -rule of the 

Jennings'case, above cited. The exception there stated 

was that an appeal might be taken directly from the county board to the District Court where the school board 

acted without authority of law, contrary to an express 

statute, and in such a manner that its acts were absolutely void. 

But that case did not decide that if an appeal 

had been taken to the State Superintendent, he would not 

have had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court merely 

held that such step in the appellate procedure could be 

omitted, The Jennings case, above discussed, has never 

been overruled- and but for the exception made in the Faru case, it is still the law. 

- 

. . 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 3, V-452. 

The Jennine case is followed in Countv TrusBell Point Common School District, 229 S. 

rwell case is followed in Board of School 

Bullock Common School District 55 S. 

W (2d) 538 ana in County School Trustees of C a 1 lahan 

& Y. District Trustees, etc., 192 S.W. (2d) 891. 

In the case presented to you, the complete 

facts of which are not available to us, if it was shown 

that the acts of the County Board were contrary to law 

and absolutely void, appeal might have been taken directly to the.District Court under the Farwell case. 

That, however, was not done, Such beinmase, you 

are respectfully advised that you have the power and duty 

to hear the appeal in t,his case under Article 2656 and 

the Jennings case. 

SUMMARY 

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction has jurisdiction to review the action of a County Board of School Trustees 

changing a boundary line between two independent school districts, notwithstanding the 

provisions of Art. 2682. Art. 2656, Jennin s 

v. Carson (Comm. App., 19201, 220 S.W. 

E;te;L;ne f.W S.,ij zi6Farwell (Comm. 

--id2) 8S 

App., 

. . 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

:JRG:erc 

Joe R. Greenhill 

Executive Assistant 

By arow 

Chester Ollison 

Assistant