Court Opinion

ID: 9830229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:59:47.070217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.409629
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellants for a Rehearing.
The sole basis of the relief sought being, as we think after further consideration of the allegations in appellants’ petition, a claimed right of the children to attend the high school in the McKinney independent school district free of any charge whatever after being transferred there, and it appearing that the children are still within the age entitling them to the benefit of the state’s free schools, we have concluded it was error to hold that the case became a moot one after August 31, 1930, when the scholastic year beginning September 1, 1929, ended. Therefore the judgment of this court dismissing the appeal, rendered here November 6, 1930, will be set aside.
However, we do not think it appeared the children were entitled to attend said high school free of charge, and therefore think, further, that the court below did not err when he refused to grant appellants the permanent injunction they prayed for. As we view it, the case is not materially different in its facts from Slocomb v. Cameron Independent School District, 116 Tex. 288, 288 S. W. 1064, where it was held, under a statute not materially different, so far as the question here is concerned, from the statute now in force, in an answer to a question certified to the Supreme Court, that an independent school district might charge tuition for pupils transferred from other districts (and see Huck v. Public Free Schools of City of Austin [Tex. Civ. App.] 290 S. W. 1118), and City of Dallas v. Love (Tex. Civ. App.) 23 S.W.(2d) 431 (writ of error granted, but on what ground we are not informed), where a similar ruling was indirectly made. The contentions, based on provisions of the Constitution, urged by appellants here, were discussed in those cases, and we think correctly determined.
The motion is granted so far as it is to .set aside the judgment dismissing the appeal, but refused so far as it is to reverse the judgment of the court below. Instead, that judgment will be affirmed.