Bon. Alwln E. Pape 

County Attorney 

Guadalupe County 

Seguln; Texaa 

Dear 

thla 

Sir: 

AUSTIN~.TEXAS .-.-sl- We.,_ . . .^ I.~.. _..___.__ 

August 29, 1952 .u...._.*-_^____’ 

Opinion No. v-1518 

Re: Procedure to dlaaolve a 

consolidated county-line 

district ‘created in the 

manner 

tiole 2 i 

rescrlbed by Ar06,’ V.C.S. 

We refer to your request for an opinion from 

office’ relative to the following aubmltted matter: 

On March 2, 1940, the Clbolo,Common 

School Dlatriot No. 29, then wholly within 

Ouadalupe County, and the Schertz Common 

County-Line School District NO. 36, then 

situated part In Ouadalupe land part in 

Bexar Counties, were properly consolidated 

In the manner preacrlbed by Article 2806, 

V.C.S. to form the Schertz-Clbolo Common 

County-Line Consolidated School District 

No. 29, comprising territory part in Quadalupe and part ‘In Bexar Counties. This 

Schertz-Cibolo district has been opera’ted 

aa a oonso,lldated county-line dlatrlot. 

since its creation. A public’ free. school 

since that time and in 1951-1952 haa been 

maintained in the dlatrlct and’ Its operation la contemplated for the 1952-1953 

school term. 

On July 9, 1952, a petition waa filed 

with the County Judge of Ouadalupe County. 

It reada In part aa followa: 

?We the underslgned residents and 

qualifled.votera of the Schertz-Clbolo Common County-Line Consolidated School Dla’- 

trlct No. 29, altuated In Ouadalupe and 

Bexar Counties, Texaa;do hereby respeotfully request that you, In connection with 

the County Judge of Bexar County, Texas, 

call an’electlon to be ‘held by the quallfled voters ‘of the Sohertz-Clbolo Common 
Hon. Alwln E. Pape, page 2 (v-1518) 

County-Line Consolidated School District 

No. 29 for the 'purpose of determining 

whether said consolidated school district 

shall be dissolved, as authorized by Article 2815 of Vernon's Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, and such supporting statutes 

as contained in Title 49, entitled Education, and that in connection with the 

County Judge of Bexar County, Texas,'give 

statutory notice of such election." 

'Thereon appear names of sixty-one (61)’ 

residents and qualified voters of the Clbolo 

vicinity, butt none from the Schertz section 

of the consolidated school district. No 

such petition has been filed with the County 

Judge.of Bexar County, but .ode may! be, containing the same 61 names. No 'like petition 

has been filed by the voters of the &hertz 

vicinity, nor have they~ joined In any peti-: 

tlon already filed or to be filed. 

Questions: 1. Is there any statute which 

provides for the dissolution of a county-line 

consolidated school district where 'the district operates 'a public sbhool therein? 

2. Under the facts submitted and on the 

quoted petition presented to the County 

Judge of Guadalupe County, can this consolldated county-line district be dissolved, and 

the former Clbolo and Schertz districts revert to their original status? 

With reference to your first question, there are 

only two statutes which provide for the dissolution of 

consolidated school districts. 

Article 2815-1, Vernon'sCivil Statutes, enacted 

in 1947, provides in part as follows: 

"Section 1. Any county line school 

district formed by the consolidation of two 

or more school districts situated 'in two or 

more counties after the'~effective date of 

this Act may be dissolved by the~~procedure 

hereinafter established, whenever-the 'consolidated school district -falls‘to~'operate 

a public free school." (Emphariri?~rl:addep., 'I, '. _' 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 3 (V-1518) 

This statute could have no application in the 

dissolution of the Clbolo-Sohertz consolidated countyline district, under the facts submitted, for the right 

to dissolve granted In that law is limited to countyline consolidated districts that "fail to operate a 

public free school." 

The other statute providing for the dissolution 

of consolidated school districts Is Article 2815, V.C.S. 

It reads In part as follows: ; 

"(a) Such consolidated districts may, 

In the same manner provided for their consolidation, be dissolved and the districts 

included therein restored to their original 

status, except that it shall not be necessary to provide polling places In each dlstrict. No election forthe dissolution of sa;d'consolldated districts shall be 

held until three (3) years have elapsed after 

the date of the election at which such dlstricts were consolidated." 

An examination of the legislative history concerning Articles 2815 and 2806, V.C.S. Is necessary here 

to determine the meaning and scope of the phrase, ,'such 

consolidated districts. 

Since 1909, when Section 3 of Article VII of 

the Constitution of Texas, was amended, the Legislature 

has been expressly authorized to provide, by general 

law, for the creation of school districts including 

territory In more than one county. Simpson v. Pontotoc 

Common~County Line School District No. 31, 275 S.W. 4@ 

(Tex. Civ. App. -error. West, 102 

Tex. 11, 111 S.W. 726 (1908). 

Article 2815 has Its orlgin~in House Bill 121, 

Acts 38th Leg., 3rd C.S. 1923, ch. 13, p. 169. House 

Bill 121 was an amendatory law providing for the consolidation of school districts and their dissolution. It 

recites unchanged Section 1 of House Bill 148, Acts 36th 

m3., 2nd C.S. 1919, ch. 65, p. 167,mthe first law authorizing the creation of consolldated'school districts, and 

then adds a new paragraph providing for their dissolution. 

Section 1 of House Bill 148, supra, as amended 

by House Bill 121 in 1923 reads In part as follows: 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 4 (v-1518) 

"Section-l. When any number of contiguous common school districts within this 

State, deslrlng~ to consolidate for school 

purposes, present a petition to the judge 

of the county wherein such districts are 

situated, signed by twenty or a majority of 

the legally qualified voters of each dlstrlct so desiring to consolidate, the county 

judge shall Issue an order for an election 

to be held in each of~the common school dlstricts so petitioning, which election shall 

be held on the same date. The county judge 

shall give notloe of the date of such elections by publication of the order In some 

newspaper published in the county, for 

twenty days prior to the date on which such 

elections are ordered, or by posting a 

notice of.such elections in each of the 

districts, or by both such publication and 

posted notices. The Commissioners' Court of 

the county in which such e~lectlons are held 

shall at Its next meeting canvass the returns 

of such elections, and if the votes cast in 

each and all districts show a majority In 

favor of the consolidation of such common 

school districts, the commlssloners' court 

shall declare such common districts consolidated, and districts being oontlguous territory. 

"It Is herein provided that in the same 

manner as is described in Section 1, common 

school districts may be consolidated with 

contiguous independent sohool ~distrlc:ts,~. . . 

"It Is herein further provided that in 

the same manner as is dea,cribed in Section 

1, such consolidated school districtsmay be 

dissolved and the distri6ts Included ~therein 

restored to their original status, except 

that it shall not be necessary to provide 

for polling places in each of the districts 

composing such consolidated districts; . e . 

provided further that no election, as provided for in this section, for the dlssolution of said consolidated districts' shall 

be held until three years have elapsed after 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 5 (V-1518) 

the date of the election at which such districts were consolidated." 

Clearly the dissolution provisions in House 

Bill 121, supra,authorised any consolidated school districts created in the manner prescribed in Section 1 

of that law to dissolve in the same manner as created 

under that law. No provision in that law can be found 

which would preclude the consolidation of contiguous 

school districts which were situated in adjoining 

counties. It Is addressed to 'any number of contiguous 

. . D school districts within this State." 

In 1925, the consolidation and dissolution 

provisions of House Bill 121 were separated and codified 

into our Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, under Articles 

2806 and 2815,'to read as follows: 

"Article 2806. Election to consolldateOn the petition of twenty or a majority of 

the legally qualified voters of each of several contiguous common school districts praylng~ for the consolidation of such districts' 

for school purposes, the county judge shall 

Issue an order for an election to be held on 

the same day in each such district. The 

county judge shall give notice of the date 

of ~such elections by publication of the order 

in some newspaper published in the county for 

twenty days prior to the date on which such 

elections are ordered, or by posting a notice 

of such elections in each of the districts, 

or by both such publication and posted notices. 

The commissioners court shall at its next 

meeting canvass the returns of such election, 

and ifs the votes cast in each and all districts show a majority in favor of such consolidation, the court shall declare such 

.common school districts consolidated. Common school districts may In like manner be 

consolidated with contl#uous independent 

school districts, . . . 

"Article 2815. Dissolution. - Such consolidated districts may in the same manner 

provided for their consolidation, be dissolved and the districts included therein 

restored to theiroriginal status, exeept 

that it shall not be necessary to provide 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 6 (V-1518) 

polling places in each district. . o . No 

election for the dissolution of said consolidated districts shall be held until three 

years have elapsed after the date of the 

election at which such districts were consolidated." 

Thus, it is made apparent that the words "such 

consolidated districts" appearing in Article 2815 mean 

any consolidated district created in the manner prescribed 

in Article 2806. Under Article 2815, such consolidated 

districts may be dissolved in the same manner and undeli 

the same procedure which authorized their creation, set 

out in Article 2806, except that in the dissolution thereof "it shall not be necessary to provide polling places 

in each district." 

Furthermore. Article 2815 remains unchanned. 

but Article 2806 has been 

42nd Leg., R.S. 1931, ch. 

828, Acts 49th Leg,, R.S. 

1931 amendment of Article 

provision: 

,I 

. . D provided . 

amended in House Bill 98, Acts 

106, p. 182, and House Bill 

1945, ch. 264, p. 416. In the 

2806, there was inserted this 

further, that when it ._ . 1s proposea to consollaate contiguous countyline districts, the petitions and election 

orders prescribed in this Act, shall be addressed to and issued by the Co~unty Judge 

of the county having jurisdiction over the 

principal school of each district and the 

results of the election shall be canvassed 

and declared by the Commissioners' Court of 

said county.' 

The tenor of this amendment is indicative that 

the authority to consolidate contiguous county-line districts already existed under those other provisions of 

Article 2806 which authorize the consolidation of any 

number of contiguo~us common or independent districts. 

Its language is not such as reflects grant of power for 

the first time. The amendatory provision appears to be 

added merely to clarify the procedure to be followed 

in the consolidation of any common or independent districts which are co,unty-line districts. 

The 1945 amendment of Article 2806 inserted 

this provision: 

- 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 7 (v-1518) 

It 

e D . Provided that if any such distrlctor districts are situated *holly in 

a county other than the county nor counties 

embracing any other such district or dlstricts the petitions and election orders 

prescribed in this Act shall be addressed 

to and issued by the respective County 

Judges of the respective counties in which 

such districts respectively lie, each 

County Judge ordering the election for the 

district or districts in his county, and 

the Commissioners Courts of such respective 

counties .shall canvass the returns and 

declare the results of the election in the 

district or dlstri~cts of their respective 

counties. . . ." 

This added amendatory matter more clearly 

constitutes simply another legislative enactment designed to clarify the procedure to be folIowed in consolidations of any contiguous common or independent school 

districts previously authorized in the manner prescribed 

in Article 2806. 

But if there be any doubt as to the authority 

of~contiguous districts wholly within adjoining counties 

of county-line districts to consolidate in the,manner 

prescribed under Article 2806, the uncertainty is resolved in an enactment of 1927, Section 5b of House' Bill 

99, Acts 40th Leg., 1st C.S. 1927, ch. 84, pm 228, 

codified as Section 5b, Article 2742b, In Vernon Civil 

Statutes. Section 5b reads in part as follows: 

'In the manner prescribed by 0 . . Article 2806 . . . providing for the consolidation 

of school districts by election, Common School 

and Common County-line School Districts may 

be consolidated, and Common School and Common 

County-line School Districts may be consolidated with a contiguous Independent District 

in the same or in an adjoining County; provided that when the proposition is to consolldate districts having territory in two or 

more adjoining Counties, the petitions and 

election orders prescribed in Article 2806 

shall be addressed to and Issued by 

the County Judge of each County for and/in 

behalf of each district wholly in his County 

or over which his County has jurisdiction 

for administrative purposes, and the County 
Hon. Alwln E. Pape, page 8 (v-1518) 

Commissioners' Court of each County shall 

canvass the returns of the eleotion in each 

district lying wholly within the County or 

under its jurisdiction for administrative 

purposes, and declare the results, as In 

the' case of the consolidation oft districts 

lying tiholly'within one County; and when the 

results are a? declared the consolidation 

of the districts shall thereby become effective." 

Section 5b, supra, like the amendments of 1931 

and 1945 to Article 2806 herein discussed, we believe 

may properly be regarded as legislative clarification of 

procedure to be, had in the consolidation of certain kinds 

of school districts, whose authority to consolidate was 

earlier provided for-in Article 2806. Section 13 of 

House Bill 99, supra, did not repeal Article 2806, nor Is 

Section 5b of Article 2742b in conflict therewith. 

In the light of the legislative history concerning Articles, 2806 and 2815, as herein considered, it 

is our opinion that Article 2815, par. (a), V.C.S., 

authorizes the abolition of any consolidated school dlstrict created by election in the manner prescribed by 

Article 2806. Further, with respect to your first question, the Schertz-Cibolo Common County-Line Consolidated 

School District No. 29, created by the consolidation of 

a common district wholly within one county with a contiguous county-line district in the manner prescribed 

in Article 2806, it may be' dissolved by an election~in 

the manner prescribed in Article 2815, par. (a), V.C.S. 

It is clear, of course, that we disagree with 

an overrule herein the statement made In Attorney General Opinion O-5758 (1944) that Article 2815 is applicable 

only to consolidated districts lying wholly within one 

county. 

We consider now your second question. Under the 

facts submitted you state that the said Schertz-Cibolo 

consolidated district was created in the manner prescribed 

by Article 2806, V.C.S. Therefore, we assume that in 

1940, a petition for the consolidation bearing the names 

of twenty or a majority of the qualified voters of the 

former Cibolo Common District was addressed to the County 

Judge of Guadalupe County and that a like'petition bearing the names of twenty or a majority of the'quallfied 

voters of the former Schertz Common County-line School 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 9 (v-1518) 

District was addressed to the County Judge of Bexar 

County or Guadalupe County, whichever county had jurisdiction of that county-line district. Woodson Ipdependent School Dist. v. State, 130 S.W.2d 1038 (Tex. Civ. 

A 141cb 

6~~'(Tex.'C~rvf"~p~e 

f I' H 

i940 ?:r% 

Trlmble, 145 S.W.2d 

onaldson v. 

State, 161 S.W.2d 324 (T;x. Civ. error ref. 

w.O.m.). Compliance with Article require 

that one or more petitons, signed by twenty or a majority of the legally qualified voters of each of the 

formerly existing districts be filed wlmhe proper 

county judge or judges. 

The provision in Article 2815 is that such 

consolidated districts may 'in the same manner provided 

for their consolidation" be.dissolved. In Consolidated 

Common School Dist. No..5 v. Wood ,112 S.W,2d 231 235, 

(Tex. Civ. App. 1937, error dism.j, the court conitrues 

the quoted phrase as follows: 

The power to dissolve the consolidaied district and thereby re-establish 

the formerly existing component districts 

is thus delegated upon the condition that 

it be done,in the same manner provided for 

their consolidation. In other words, the 

Legislature in prescribing the several essential steps by which such delegated power 

should fully vest did 80 by reference to the 

procedure by which the consolidation was 

effected. It is not permissible, we think, 

to substitute any other, unless some other 

is expressly authorized, or excepted from 

the 'requirement that it be in the same man- 

- ner as provided for consolidation. "0 

such exception is made, which Is thatnYit 

shall not be necessary to provide ppllirg plSaes 

in ea.h"distribti' That was a wholly unnecessary exception; unless it was deemed by the 

lawmakers that by proceeding to a dissolution 'in the same manner' would require as 

many different polling places as was required in the elections for c~onsolldation. 

Therefore, if there was any doubt or uncertainty -as-,to w:hat was meant by the 'same 

manner provided for their consolidation,' 

the exception would seem to remove such 

doubt and make clear the meaning. It seem 

to us the general provision read In connec- 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 10 (v-1518) 

tion with the single exception compels the 

conclusion that the ssame manner' would require one or more petitions, signed by 

twenty or a majority of the legally qua1i.r~:~ 

fied'voters of each of the formerly existing 

districts; that the election be held at the 

several polling places in each of said districts or (under authority of the express 

exheption) at one polling place, but just as 

was provided in Article 2807, with reference 

to the two kinds of elections held at the 

same place, that separate ballot boxes and 

tally sheets, etc. be provided and that the 

result or results of the several elections 

be separately ascertained and declared. 

The last-named provision shows 'that the 

Legislature did not regard election and 

polling places as synonymous. 

"There Is another consideration which 

seems to us to favor such interpretation of 

the phrase 'In the same'manner provided for 

their consolidation.' The steps prescribed 

for consolidation quite clearly manifest the 

policy that no such consolidation shall be 

affected contrary to the will (expressed in 

the elections) of any one of the districts. 

Of any number of districts involved in a 

proposed consolidation the unanimous will of 

all, ascertained by elections separately 

held, is required. But if the construction 

of these statutes contended for by the plaintiffs be correct, then a contrary policy is 

manifest in the provisions of the dissolution of consolidated districts. Under that 

construction it would be possible to dissolve 

a consolidated district by the will of the 

voters in the territory of a single district 

which went into the consolidation, although 

contrary to the will, if separately expressed, 

of all the other districts inv.olved In the 

consolidation. We can perceive no reason 

why one policy should prevail in consolidations and a contrary policy in dissolutions." 

In the instant matter, the petition for a dissolution election filed with the County Judge of Guadalupe County on July 9, 1952, contains the names, you 

state, of legally qualified voters residing only in the 
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 11 (v-1518) 

Cibolo area of the consolidated district. Since the 

former Cibolo district was wholly located in Guadalupe 

County and under the jurisdiction of that county, the 

petition, insofar-as qualified voters of the Cibolo 

area is concerned, appears to be in compliance with 

the requirements of Article 2815 and 2806. But it is 

insufficient and could not be acted 'upon by the County 

Judge of Bexar County or the County Judge of Guadalupe 

County for the Schertz area of consolidated district 

(if the former Schertz county-line area was under the 

jurisdiction of the Guadalupe County) because it does 

not contain the names of twenty or a majority ofthe 1, 

qualified voters residing now in the Schertz area. 

Popnoe v. Corbin, 215 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948). 

Accordingly, it is our opinion that under the 

laws stated and the facts submitted, a properielection 

for the dissolution of the Schertz-Cibolo Common County 

Line Consolidated School District No. 29 may not be had 

based alone on the petition herein considered. 

SUMMARY 

Under Article 2815, par. (a), V.C.S., 

the Schertz-Cibolo Common County Line Consolidated School District No. 29 may be 

dissolved by an election held in the same 

manner it was consolidated, as prescribed 

in the provisions of Article 2806, V.C.S., 

except that it is not necessary to provide 

polling places in each former district consolidated. 

Such Schertz-Cibolo county-line district could not properly be dissolved in an 

election called and based alone on the petltion, dated July 9, 1952, it not containing 

the names of twentv or a ma.-lorits of the 

legally qualified ioters from each of the 

districts consolidated. Consolidated Comm;n School Dist:. No. 5 v. Wood, 112 S.W. 

2 231 (Tex. civ. App. 1937, error dism.) 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

E. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

By Chester E. Ollison 

Assistant