munIoIpa1corporation,chartered under the laws of the state,has assumedcontrolof its public schools,and 88 suoh Is to be regardedas an Independentschool district."
In dealingwith schoolswhich are under the controland manage- ment of cities the courtshave oonsl6tsnt4 held thst the rate of tax which msy be leviedfor schoolpurposcuIn such cities is limitedby tit&lo 7, Section 3 of the Constitutionof Texas which relatesto schools and is not controlledby Article 8, Section 9 of the Constitution,which limitsthe tax rate of counties,cities 8nd towns. In other words, in this respect,the courtshave treatedschoolsunder the managementand controlof cities8s school districtsrather th8n as 8 part Of the Cities under whose controlthe schoolsare operated.
The first of these cases is Houstonv. Ccmzales.&dependent SchoolDistrIct,decidedby the Commissionof Appeals in 1921, 229 S.W. 467. The City of Coneales,while exercisingcontrolof its schoolshad issuedbonds for the erectionof schoolbuildingswhich requireda tax levy of 179. Thereafter,the Legislature,by specialAct, divestedthe City of Gonzalesof controlof its schoolsand createdthe Conzales IndependentSchool Districtcomprisingthe city and approximate4 24,000 aores in additionthereto. The trusteesof the new districtthen . .
State Board of Education,page 6 (o-We)
attemptedto levy a 404 tax On the propertyof the entire district. The CourVhdld that the new tax wae valid only to the extent of 334 because at that time,Article7, Section 3 of our ConetltutlonlimitedWee for echool~purpoeee to 50$ 60 that the s&o01 dletrlot'oould levy only 33# in additionto the 174 previously leviedby the City of Gonzaleewhile in 00ntro10f ite eohool8. The oourt held that the 174 tar originally leviedby the oity for eahool purpoeeewae a eohool tax authorizedand limitedby Artiole 7, Seotlon 3 of the conetltution,ma not a oity tax limitedby Article 8, Section 9 (which limltecounties,oltles and towns to 25d "for the erreotionof public buildings,eewere,w&terworkeand other improvements").Spencer,J., speakingfor the court at page 468, said:
"The beneficialtitle to the propertyof the Gonzales Sohool districtae originallyformedwae in the people thereof- the mayor merely holding tie came ln trust for the sole uee of the " echoole - and the Legislaturecould,withoutany wtee disturbInS much title,ohange the tnieteee,as was done by the epeoiala&,."
And at page 469s
"The bonded indebtednessbeing for schoolpurposes,the 174 tax levy neceeearyto pay the interestthereonand provide a sinkingAma, to retire same at maturity,is a ltiitation upon the taxingpower of the district,but not a ,limltation upon the 01t.y Of ChI?d.ee for buildingp~rpO688."
The leadingcase annquncingtie doctrineof'the dual nature of a city which has assumedcontrolof its schools Is City of Rockdalev. Cureton,decidedby the !@exaaSupremeCourt in 1921, 111Tex. 1.36, 229 S.W. 852. We quote from the court'8statementof the facts in this~oaae:
'Prior to 1918, the city of Rockdale,incorporatedunder the generallaws,had assumed the controlof its public schools. The effectof this actionwas to oonetltuteit, for school purpoeee,an independentecho01 district. Article 2871.
"It had never extendedita city boundariesfor echo01 purposes."
This was an action to 0-1 the AttorneyGeneralby mandamus to approvea $75,000bond issuewhich he had refusedto approvefor the reason that the tar necessaryto pay the same would exceed the city's 256 tax l+mit for improvements,imposedby Article 8, Section 9 of Us ConEtitutlon. The oourt granted tie mandamusfor the reaeon that the tax of