Munson v. Iooney, AttorneyGeneral,107 Tex. 263, 268, 172 S.W. 1102, 177 S.W. 1193. Or, In virtue of the tews of Section 10, Article 11, of the Conatitutlon,and for the convenientadmlnistratlve pUZ=POSEE, 'the k.&dhtWe Dlz3y OOWtitUte 8Uy City Or tOWl a separateand independentschool district.' Such a combination of the two munioipalcorporations,each sui generis,does not take fram either its distinctivefeatures."
In Ttiacoarv. City of Galveston,(GalvestonCourt of Civil Appeals, 1930,writ of error refused)28 S.W. (26) 887, the court held that an additionalschool tax in the City of Galvestonwas valid when based upon a vote of "a majorityof the qualifiedtax paying voters of the dietriatvotingat an election"as providedby Article 7, Section 3 of the Oonat.ltution,even though this electiondid not satisfythe requirementof Article 11, Section 10 of the Constitution,that "two- thirdsof the tax payers of such city or town shall vote for such tax," therebyfurther indicatlng,that city-controlled schoolsare treatedfor electionpurposesa8 "schooldlstriota"rather than as "cities." We quote frau the opinionof Pleasants,C. J., at page 891:
"The City of Galvestonis one of the school district8 of the State, createdas such in the mannerprovidedby our Constitutionand legislativeacts, and in itb capacityas e schooldietrictit cannot be denied the rights and prlvilegetl given by the Oovtitution to all other school districtain the state. It cannotbe held that because it is an Incorporated cl&y having a~speclalmunlolpalcharterthat Its constitutional power* as a free school districtof the State are in any way lessenedor restricted. We think thla questionIs settledby the opinionof our SupremeCourt in the ease of Rookdalev. Cureton,111Tex. 1.36,229 S.W. 852." -.. .
We wish to olte only a few additionaloWes whloh further indicatethat olty-oontrolled eohooldara to be mated am independent, sohool aisthte rather thau tam lnntegral partu of'*e oitier.
,InOity of FortWoi%b v. Cureton, (1920)ll0 Tar. 590, 222 S.W. 531, the SuprezneCFt con&rued the ohfarter of the olty of Port Worth which limitedthe tax rate for all purpoaeeto $1.75 "inclus$ve of the school tax that may bc,leviedby the board of truateeeof public schoolsas providedby thls.Aot"60 ae to authorir,e an iacreassin the combinedtax rate when the tax rate for e&o01 purpoeeeonly was increased by charteramendment. The oourtalluded to the dualcharaoterof a city which has controlof its sohooleand declaredthat the chartershouldnot be construedso aa to reduce the authorizedtaxrate for ~emeralmunlolpal purposesin the event of an increaseln the rate for sohoolpurposesonly.
In City of Belton k. &la Trust& Sav& Benk, 273 S.W. 914, ( the Texas Comnleslonof Appeab, 283,S.W.164) the Auatln CaUrt of ClvllAppea3n held that a ohsrterprovisionauthorizing a $1.50 tsl rate without atatiag I@ purpose,had referenoeto taxation for Seneralmunleipalpurposesunder the home-rulemndment, and had no relationwhateverto the c~lty'ataxlnSpower wuIan independentaohool aiatriot.,
The Austin Court of Clvll~ADpeale,in Temple IndependentSchool Districtv. Prooter, (1936) 97 S.9..(2d) l&y, (writof error rofueed), held that the validityof a contrffi~i; between the Supertitendentor s~@Mle In Templeand the school board (whichwa8 appointedby the citv ooinoil; ,Templehaving assumedcontrolof its schools)was to be gpvernednot by the city charterbut by the statutesrelatingto school affalre. In this case Judge Bau& declared,at page 1053:
"It is now sett@d, however,that, where suoh city does amume cantrolof its schools,such