the terms &the above .designated sectionsof thy iii 1929 Acts,'provi.sionis-made therelnthat 'in each coui+ty,of.thisState board of trustees &iall.havg the authority, when duly pe- titioned.& provided in said Acts, to deta&'from; and annex to, any:.schooldistriqt'territory contigu6us to the common boundary line of the two dis~tricts;provided the board of trusteesof the district &which the'annexa- tion is to.be,~made,:~approves-,by m$jority vote,theproposed ; ' further'proce- Hon. L, A. Vioods;page .-3 '(v-872) :
' ~'dure, than tenpercent of the district is in- .volved,-and speoific,ally-providethat "no schooS dis- trict shall b&reduced $6'ep area .of.less ~tharinine square mi1es.v .. . .~ ,, _. ,The-repealingclause of the 1929 Acts, Chap- ter '47; Section 3+ reads in part as follows,: ,.. "All lawtiand parts af laws, Gtirieral arid~S~ecial,'in'o~nfli,ct h&reijithare'here- by repealedi . .v'~. _ .'
a repeal of to; or in~olisistentwith, ,
L. discuss whet&r themin (providing for automat&z ei; of city oontrolled.sohool districts was repealed by the 1929 .A&% above it has been held InCit of Beau; .:'mont'Ind. School Dist. v. Broadus; 182 &W. --5mKz. 2d 0 ;~.,Civ. App: 19l$+;error ref.).t&t article 2804 haspnot been-repealed, e&pressly.nor,by '1929 Abts, for the.reasonthat& .o~f-the,,. laws relating to : ~:distr%cts,andothersehool-,districts.in the county shows a manifest intention ,on%he~part of the-law-making body to provide-for two separate'classSfications of districts, nsmel~, a district locatdd~withina inuAicipal.ity,over ~" .. which.the qitg has ass)uu@ control; andadistrlct over which a City has no control. Opinion'~-3823 properly ,:,holda'that~Artiole 2806 is'notapplidable to Texarkana Independ~t~~School'b~kittict.
"The ~egisl&X've historycoiicerning the TeXar- : kana Independent'SohoolDistrictshows'that it is not a munioipaIIy controlled sohodl district. '-Itis.an inde- pendent scihool~distriatcreated~~bgBpecial'law;divorc- city cdjitrolin 1920. Chap. 31, S.B. 9, Acts Legislature, 3rd C.S., 1920, as.amended'by-Chap-;-. 297;~SDec. Laws of 39th Leg., 1st C.S., 1926; A.G. :OpinionNo. 0-3823;.V-650. We find no like ,legis- lative history which would operate~to save from the re- pealing &feats of ths 1929 Acts, school district.8like Texarkanacreated bye special law and which do not fall within the classification of.a municipally controlled school digtr1c.t. - .
Han, L, A. Woods, page 4 (V-872).
It is our opinion, therefore, that to the ex-~ tent that the annexation provisions found in Section lo+ of S.B. 297 (the s ecial law applicable to the Texarw Independent SchoolP are repugnrat to, or inconsistent with, the Acts .of 1929 (Section 2 of Article 27&e md Section 1 of Article 27&f) they have been repealed by the Section 3 of the.1929 Acts, above quoted. Section l-a of S.B.-297 provides that the pe- titlon for annexation of'contiguous territory to the district~.shallbe filed with the board of trustees of the Texarkana district, ,,andthat such.board by resolu- tion may receive such territory. The subsequent 1929' Acts provide that such a petition for detachment and an- nexation of territory to a contiguous district shallbe submitted with the county board of trustees, and (the . other procedure of the Acts being complied with) the county board may pass an order transferring said terri-~ tory. Construing the Acts of 1929 together, asthey must be Qen common and independent districts are involved, they contain the express prohibition that "no school -'districtshall be~reduced