Court Opinion

ID: 9683711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:35:35.108176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:49.808726
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Griffin,
joined by Justices Brewster and Garwood, dissenting.
I believe the majority opinion is wrong for the following reasons:
Chapter 19A, containing Articles 2922a, 2922c and 2922d, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, was originally passed in 1925 by the 39th Legislature, and .for the purpose of “making provision for a better system of schools in the various counties of this State” and to remedy a situation whereby the Legislature considered “our rural school and rural high school system is wholly inadequate.”
The first part of Article 2922a provides for the creation of rural high school districts by grouping certain named schools. Next is a section dealing with the annexation of certain school districts. This section follows the “grouping” section and is a part of the same sentence, being preceded by a semicolon. Such section starts with the words “provided also,” etc. To uphold petitioners’ contention that a rural high school district may not be formed by method of annexation, we must hold that the “provided also” and the clause having to do with the annexation of one school district to another, covers an entirely different subject than the subject of rural high schools as is discussed in the first part of Article 2922a. To so hold would be to make such second section unconstitutional and void and bring it within the prohibition of Article III, Section 35, Texas Constitution, that a bill must not contain more than one subject. On the other hand, to hold that “provided also” is a conjunction and means “besides” or “in addition to” (as held in Texas Employers’ Ins. Assn. v. Perry, Tex. Civ. App., 35 S.W. 2d 1087, loc. cit., middle 1st col., p. 1089, writ refused), and providing for another *252method or plan of forming a rural high school district possessing some of the characteristics of an independent school district, is to give constitutionality to the act and validity to the purpose the Legislature had in mind in passing the law. As to the use of “provided” in legislation as a conjunction, see the authorities cited in 34 Words and Phrases, Per. Ed., pp. 672 et seq.; Rae v. Baker, Tex. Civ. App., 38 S.W. 2d 366, loc. cit. (5), p. 368, writ refused.
The majority attempts to justify their holding by drawing a distinction between a rural high school district and a rural high school. I do not see the relevancy, or the substance, of such distinction in determining the validity of the school district in this suit. The majority offers as an additional reason for holding there can be no creation of a rural high school district by annexation, that there are no words providing such action in the “provided also” “annexation” clause. By the same token there are no words authorizing the creation of a rural high school, and, according to the majority’s reasoning, no rural high school may be created by annexation.
Another effect of the majority opinion is to deny the benefits of the rural high school act to common school districts of more than 400 scolastic population and independent school districts of more than 250. To hold the “annexation” clause another means of creating a rural high school district, is to make available rural high school districts to both common and independent school districts of all classifications. The title to the Act in nowise supports the construction given to the Act by the majority opinion. Under the majority opinion, no rural high school district can be created having the attributes of an independent school district, but only those having the attributes of a common school district.
I regard it as having been settled by many decisions of the Court of Civil Appeals in which writs of error have been re-refused by this court for more than fifteen years, that a rural high school district may be formed by annexation. Although there has been no case by this court which reasons out this exact point, there have been many refusals of applications for writs of error in cases involving the validity of such created districts, which can only mean that this court has approved such holding.
The act in question has been upheld as constitutional every time it has been attacked, beginning with Henderson v. Miller, Tex. Civ. App., 286 S.W. 501, writ refused, on down at least as *253late as County Board of Sch. Trustees v. Mayfield C. S. D. No. 22, Tex. Civ. App., 140 S.W. 2d 956, writ dismissed-correct judgment.
In the last cited case the formation of a rural high school district by annexation was involved, being a suit to set aside an order of the County Board of School Trustees to create a rural high school district by annexation, and the formation of such district was sustained. The Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals in that case said: “The constitutional authority of the Legislature to grant such powers (to create rural high school districts) to the county school board is no longer an open question” (citing numerous authorities) ; loc. cit., (1-3), 1st col., p. 960.
In the case of State ex rel Lowe v. Cadenhead (1939), Tex. Civ. App., 129 S.W. 2d 743, writ refused, a proceeding in quo warranto was brought seeking to invalidate the creation of Weinert Rural High School District No. 50. The opinion states that such rural high school district “exists as the result of an attempted grouping of a number of common school districts with, or annexation of same to Weinert Independent Consolidated School District * * * at an election * * * held Oct. 8, 1938 resulting in favor of the proposition to authorize the grouping or annexation of said districts.” The opinion discusses the formation of rural high school districts as distinguished from consolidation of districts and states that, under Chapter 19A, Title 49, Articles 2922a et seq., Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Ann., rural high school districts may be formed by six different methods, or combination of circumstances. Among the six there is specifically provided “(e) by annexing one or more common school districts to an independent school district having 250 or more scholastic population.” This case has never been questioned by any later case, but has been accepted as a pronouncement of the law with regard to formation and characteristics of rural high school districts. In addition to the above cases, the following cases approve the formation of school districts by annexation under Article 2922a: Lee v. Leonard Ind. Sch. Dist., Tex. Civ. App., 24 S.W. 2d 449, writ refused; Terrell v. Clifton Ind. Sch. Dist., Tex. Civ. App., 5 S.W. 2d 808, writ refused; Trinity Independent School Dist. v. District Trustees, Dist. 24, Trinity County, Tex. Civ. App., 135 S.W. 2d 1021, writ refused; Live Oak County Board of Trustees v. Whitsett Common School Dist., et al, Tex. Civ. App., 181 S.W. 2d 847, writ refused, (district held invalid because it had more than seven elementary school districts and election failed in three districts) ; Dawn *254Common School Dist. No. 2 v. County School Board of School Trustees of Deaf Smith County, Tex. Civ. App., 205 S.W. 2d 826, writ refused; Elliott Common School Dist. No. 48 v. County Board of School Trustees, Tex. Civ. App., 76 S.W. 786, writ dismissed; Fairfield Independent School Dist. v. Street-man Independent School Dist., Tex. Civ. App., 222 S.W. 2d 651, no writ history; Board of Dist. Trustees of Lanier Common School Dist. No. 49, Cass County v. Board of County School Trustees of Cass County, Tex. Civ. App., 232 S.W. 2d 100, refused; N.R.E.; County Board of School Trustees of Limestone County v. Wilson, Tex. Civ. App., 15 S.W. 2d 144, writ dismissed.
In Weaver v. Board of Trustees of Wilson Ind. School Dist., Tex. Civ. App., 184 S.W. 2d 864, writ refused, want of merit, 143 Texas 530, 187 S.W. 2d 221, an attack was made on the validity of annexation of the Morgan Independent School District to the Wilson Independent School District. The court overruled the attack and held that a valid rural high school district had been formed by annexation, either by an election prior to the order of the County Board of School Trustees, or by consent of the trustees of the two component districts. The court says:
‘It appears from the record that the proceedings for annexation were governed by the provisions of Chapter 19A, Article 2922a et seq., which are set out in Volume 8 of Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, and deal with the establishment and control of rural high schools. Article 2922a, provides for their establishment by the county school trustees by grouping of certain school districts or the annexation of one district to another, where the districts involved fall within the classifications specified in the article. Among the classifications is that of annexing an independent school district having less than two hundred fifty scholastic population to an independent school district having two hundred fifty or more scholastic population. Article 2922c provides that in the event the rural high school district to be formed shall contain a greater area than one hundred square miles its formation must be authorized by a vote of a majority of the qualified electors in the proposed rural high school district voting at an election called for such purpose. The record discloses that at the time the county school board entered its order annexing the Morgan district to the Wilson district, the Wilson district contained more than two hundred fifty, and the Morgan district contained less than two hundred fifty, scholastic population. As stated, the record is silent on the extent of the combined area of the Wilson and Morgan districts.” (Emphasis added.)
*255In Wilson Independent School Dist. v. Weaver, 143 Texas 530, 187 S.W. 2d 221, this court, speaking through Chief Justice Alexander, discussed a practice matter, and then says: “We have carefully considered the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals on the merits, and have concluded that a correct judgment was rendered therein. The application for writ of error is therefore refused for want of merit.”
Petitioners cite Trinity Independent School Dist. v. District Trustees, supra, and County Board of School Trustees v. Gray, Tex. Civ. App., 142 S.W. 2d 697, writ refused, for authority that a rural high school district may not be created by annexation. Yet, in the Trinity Independent School District case, 135 S.W. 2d at p. 1023, top 1st col., the court states that the county trustees, under Article 2922a, may create rural high school districts by grouping, or by annexation.
In the Gray case, supra, the court says that although no brief has been furnished by Gray, evidently the action of the trial court in granting the injunction against the formation of the district sought by annexation was based on the construction of Chapter 19A, Articles 2922a, et seq., “as authorizing the formation of only rural high schools, and, in particular, as not authorizing the annexation of a common school district to an independent district by action of County Board with the consent of the trustees of the district affected.” The injunction was dissolved and the district created held valid, thus disapproving the reasoning of the trial court and of Gray, and sustaining the annexation.
Much of the confusion in the decision claimed by the petitioners is a result of the failure to distinguish between the kinds of rural high school districts. The Legislature intended to authorize rural high school districts to be created which may have the characteristics of a common school district or of an independent school district. The reasoning of Judge Sanford in the case of County Board of School Trustees of Limestone County v. Wilson, Tex. Civ. App., 15 S.W. 2d 144, dismissed, and found on page 146 and 147 (3,4) correctly sets forth the intention of the Legislature in passing Chapter 19A and its amendments. This is further shown by reference to Article 2922c, providing for an election to create rural high school districts in certain instances. Unless the provision of Article 2922a with regard to annexations brings about the creation of a rural high school district, then no election is required in annexations of school districts to each other, and the County Board is left free to *256annex districts without regard to areas, number of elementary districts, or the wishes of the residents of the proposed district. A reading of the whole of Chapter 19A clearly shows that the Legislature had no such intention.
The holding of the majority that an annexation is not a creation of a rural high school district, because there is no express provision in Article 2922a that such a result follows from an annexation, renders Article 2922c inapplicable to annexations, for the reason that the word “annexation” is nowhere used in Article 2922c. This must necessarily follow if the reasoning of the majority that “annexation” is a means of creating high schools or even rural high schools, but not a means of creating a rural high school district. Article 2922c provides “No rural high school district, as provided for herein * * *except that the county school board of school trustees may form rural high school districts, as provided in Article 2922a * * *in said proposed rural high school district * * *; and provided further, * * * may form a rural high school district * * * within such proposed rural high school district.” (Emphasis added.)
If the majority is correct, Article 2922c does not apply to annexations under Article 2922a. Article 2922a gives the County Board of School Trustees a free hand in annexing the districts therein described. They need not get the consent of anyone, nor hold any election whatsoever, unless Article 2922c applies. Nor is it required that a majority of the voters affected in any particular district must vote in favor of such proposal. I do not believe that the Legislature ever intended to permit such action on the part of the County Board of School Trustees, and leave the voters resident in the proposed districts helpless to avoid such result. I think Article 2922c applies to annexations and limits the county board. Under the majority opinion, the county board, by annexations and without any election whatsoever, can combine all of the school districts of any county into one large district. The majority also says that in Article 2922a the Legislature was careful to define the types or classes of school districts that might be grouped to form a rural high school district. No district can be included in such a district unless it is contiguous to the other districts with which it is to be grouped. By the same reasoning the districts to be annexed need not be contiguous to each other, but one may be in the southwest part of a county and the other in the northeast part of the county, for there is no requirement in the “annexation” proviso for contiguity, and this is one of the reasons assigned *257by the majority for holding “annexation” does not create a rural high school district. If we will keep in mind the difference in government and administration of a common school district and of an independent school district, and also remember that the Legislature wanted to benefit all rural schools and rural sections, then all provisions of Chapter 19A became consistent and reasonable. They enable an independent school district to become a rural high school district without any loss of its former rights and freedom of administration; and at the same time permit common school districts to have the advantage of good rural high schools through annexation without losing their identity, as is done if they should consolidate with an independent school district under Article 2806 et seq., or be attached under Article 2742f.
A reading of the cases cited shows conclusively that, since the passage of the Act in 1925, it has been considered by a vast majority of the courts, and the school authorities of the State of Texas, that the provision for forming rural high school districts by annexation of certain districts is and has been valid. Particularly since State v. Cadenhead, writ refused, supra, the school authorities and courts have relied, without any serious question, upon the powers therein stated that belong to the county board of school trustees to form rural high schools by annexation. The Legislature has passed numerous acts validating rural high school as created by county school boards, and in practically all acts have validated annexations along with groupings.
I therefore would hold the act of the County Board of School Trustees, in creating the rural high school district by annexation, to be valid.
I agree with the majority opinion that petitioners’ second proposition should be overruled, and with the reasons there given.
By specific direction of the latter part of Article 2922b, the district created has all the status of an independent school district and must retain the name of the Joaquin Independent School District, No. 38 of Shelby County, as that is the nuclear independent school district to which the common school districts were annexed. .
The County School Board erred in appointing the Board of Trustees, and the trustees should be elected by .the voters from the enlarged district, as provided by Article 2922e and other laws *258applicable to election of trustees in an independent school district.
Opinion delivered April 18, 1951.
Associate Justice Brewster and Garwood joined in this dissent.
Rehearing overruled June 13, 1951.