February 11, 1939 

Honorable Morris Ralston 

County Attorney 

Titus County 

Mt. Pleasant, Texas 

Dear Mr. Rolstxm: 

OpinionNo.O-1gg 

Re: Consolidation of one integral 

unit of rural high school district with another school district outside rural high school . 

district unit 

On February 10th the following wire was received from you: 

"Would appreciate a telegraphic reply western union collect 

to the following question. Where two contigioua common 

school districts have been by the county board of trustees 

consolidated as rural high school district, then can one 

of such distri&thereafter, without the consent of the 

county board, petition the county judge for an election 

as provided by Article 2806 to determine whether or not 

that one district can be consolidated with some other 

district for school purposes, and will county judge be 

required to call such election notwithstanding prior 

consolidation with other district for rural high school 

purposes?" 

and on that date we answered you by the following wire: 

"Pete1 school consolidation election stop county school 

trustees group cannot consolidate contigious districts 

forming rural hi& school districts Article 292a et seq 

stop grouped districts become corporate body composed of 

nuclear districts stop whole is one corporation and integral unit cannot act independent of other integral units 

thereof stop county judge without authority call consolidation elections conditions stated." 

In further answer to the inquiry made, we give you this letter and advise 

that we are hesitant to wire an answer to request made by telegram due 

to the fact that the cases are not always clear to us that you have in 

mind. 
Hon. Morris Rolston, Feb. 11, 1939, Page 2 (O-19) 

You use the words "notwithstanding prior consolidation with other district 

for rural high school purposes" is confusing in that Article 2806, Revised 

Statutes, and other Articles relating to consolidation, and Article 2922a 

et seq. are altogether different methods, and our answer to your wire 

,was besed upon the assumption that you aretalking about the fact that 

one district was prior thereto grouped with another district by the 

county board of school trustees under Article 2922a, et seq., thereby 

forming a rural high school district with one board of trus&ees over 

the whole of the high school'district thus formed, and on this basis, 

we give you this letter in order that we may make ourselves~ clearer. 

Consolidation is first raised under the present school laws as we find 

them to be by virtue of Article 2681, and this law is held constitutions 

in the case of Stinson v. Graham, 286 S. W. 264, however, in the 

subsequent Article 2695, the question seems to be raised that the county 

superintendent b.as power to consolidate districts in certain instances, 

but a ruling by the Department of Education has held that such power is 

not given the county superintendent by virtue of this Article. This 

then brings the matter down to the statute referred to in your wire, i, 

e. Article 2806, held as the then exclusive method of consolidation. 

Dover School v. County Trustees, 248, S. W. 1062, This particular law, 

by its own terms, refers to consolidation of common school districts 

and consolidation of independent school districts. 

The next step we will discuss is the grouping and annexing statute 

called Article 292a, et seq. Under this chapter another method of 

organization of high school districts Is given and broad powers are 

delegated to the board of county school trustees. Their power of 

organization is limited in these instances to rural high school districts 

composing of seven or fewer in number of nuclear districmand to areas 

of 100 square miles or less without a vote of the people, but they may 

go further by election as is provided, in the subsequent articles dealing 

with the same subject. 

These rural high school districts are organized with one board of 

trustees over the entire district and the integral units thereof are a 

part of the larger corporate whole and, of course, must be subservient 

therein. It is true that the integral part still exists, but the 

high school set up is one corporate body. 

The Legislature evidently has in mind situations arising like that 

evidently existing in your county, and your attention is called to part 

of Article 2922f, which provides in part: 
Hon. Morris Rolston, Feb. 11, 1939, Page 3 (O-159) 

J’. . . and said district may be consolidated by the comty 

board of school trustees with some other district or districts 

for elementary school purposes; provided that if there is 

more than one white or one colored school in such a elementary 

school district the board of trustees of the said rural high 

school districts or an independent district, as the case 

may be, may consolidate such white or colored schools of 

the elementary district; . . . * 

Thus it can be seen by this and other articles of this chapter relating 

to schools that it was the intention of the Legislature to vest the 

provisions of the rural high school creation in county boards of school 

trustees, and if one elementary district of the whole could consolidate 

by election with some outside school, there would be an immediate conflict 

of the boards of trustses~ of the consolidated district with that of the 

rural high school district. 

Ye, therefore, hold that an elementary district of a rural high school 

district cannot consolidate by election with a district outside the 

rural high school fsmily theretofore formed and have a conflict in the 

governing bodies of the rural high school and the consolidated district, 

and your question is answered in the negative. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY - OF TEXAS 

s/ George S. Berry 

BY 

George S. Berry 

Assistant 

GSB:R/ldu 

APPROVED: 

s/ Gerald C. Mann 

AT!COFNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS