referringto the snac+xuent wherein this requIreskent first 8ppeaiWd. This ~8s S.B. 218, Chapter 124, p8ge 263, Acts 1905,Regular Session,29th Legislature,which act was a ccmprehensivestatuteprovidingfor a ocmpletesystemof publicfree schools In Texas. Let us examinesaid Act to see whether the J..egislature regardedthe schoolsystem of 8 city which had assumedcontrolof its schools8s an Integralpart of the municipalityor whether it treatedthe school so controlled8s 8 separateand Independentschool district.
In other parts of this Act the legislaturemade detailedprovi- sion for the creationand operationof rchoolsunder the controlof aities and towns,and these provisions,tend to indicatethst the Legislature regardedsuch munlclp8laohooldistriats8s separateand distinctentitles, 8p.Wt fran the municipalfunotIo%MOf the citiesunder WhOSo OOn~Ol they were placed.
For example,Section U6 of the Act providedthat in cities 8nd townswhich had 8ssumOdcontrolof the schoolswithin their limits,"such exclusivecontroland management. . . shall be In a board of trustees," and the title to all school propertyshall be vested in such board, and ". . . such board of trusteesshallconstitutea body COrpOr8te.. .)I
Section lj7 providedthat the pro rat8 part of the *Vailable school fund and all taxes levied for school purposesshall be paid "direct.4 to the Treasurerof the board of trustees. . . and the mayor end council or board of aldermanof such city or town shall have no power or control of such funds."
in this respect is Section 144 of the Of specialsifplificanoe Act which re8dsr
"Schoolsthus organizedand providedfor by Incorporated cities and towns shall be subJectto the generallaws, so far as the 8Bme are 8ppliCablej but each city or town having controlof schoolswithin its limitsshall constitutea separateschool dis- trict and may providefor the organizationof schoolsand the appropriationof its school funds in such m8nner 88 may be best suited to its populationand condition." (Emphasisours) (Said section144 is the legislatuveancestorof Article 2768,R.C.S., 1925). . .
State Board of Education,page 5 (0-4&l)
Seotion 148 providedfor the extensionof the oorporatelimits of such oity or towns "for school purposes0134,' and stated that "the added territoryshall not affeot the olty debts or busInessi relationsIn any manner whatsoever, exoeptfor sohoolpurposeeas providedabove,"
It seems to us, that the provislonaabovereferredto In the 1905 enactmentwhich containedfor the first time.the 7$ debt limitation upon bonds whioh are to be purchasedby the permanentpublio free sohool fund, ol.ear4 Indicatesthat the Lsgislatursregardedthe school system of a city or town which had assumedcontrolof its schoolsas 8n Indepen- dent schooldistrictand 8 separateand distinotgovernment81entity fran the municipalcorporationproper; 80 that In app4Ing the 7% debt ratio provisionto such a city due regardmust be given to Its dual character to the end that the 7% provisionsshould be appliedseparate4 to each of,the governmentalentitiesand not to the city and the school district taken together.
While the preolse~question with referenceto the oonstruotionof the 7% debt limitationh8s never been before the appellatecourts of Texas, our courtshave consistent4 reoognizedthe dusl entitleaof cities and school districtswhich have been 8uthOriZOdunder Article 11, Section 10 of our Constitution,and in every Instanaethe court haa given effect to the separateentitiesInvolved.
Thus In Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex.,351,40 S.W. (2d) 20, Chief JusticeCuretondeclared,at page 356:
"The City of Dallas is a