Court Opinion

ID: 9834517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:39:29.154961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:08.291921
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing appellants very earnestly insist that this court erred in holding in our original opinion that county school trustees are prohibited by article 2756, Revised Statutes 1925, from changing the boundaries of appellee school district so as to reduce the taxable value of the taxable property in the district against which bonds legally issued by the district are outstanding.
This insistence is based upon the contention that the cited article of the statutes was repealed by Acts First Galled Session Fortieth Legislature, entitled “Formation and change of school districts.” This act, which is chapter* 84 of the acts mentioned,'and appears on page 228 of the published acts, is cited in appellants’ brief, but was not discussed or referred to in our opinion. The act was, in our opinion, so clearly inapplicable in this case that we deemed a reference thereto unnecessary, but in deference to request of appellants’ counsel we will here state the reasons upon which we base the conclusion that it did not apply in this ease:
The authority given county school trustees by sections 9, 10, 11, .and 12 of the act to malee such adjustment of outstanding indebtedness of school districts in which the boundaries have been changed, or which have been consolidated, can by nb reasonable construction of the act as a whole authorize a change in the boundaries of a school district which has outstanding bonded indebtedness, unless such change is made in the manner prescribed by the act.
Section 1 of the act provides in substance that, whenever a majority of the legally qualified taxpaying voters residing in any territory contiguous to an independent school district shall desire the annexation of such territory to the independent district, they shall petition the county judge for an election in the territory seeking annexation to deter*510mine whether such annexation shall be made. The requisites of the petition are set out in the act, and, if these are complied with, it is made the duty of the county judge to order the election. If at such election a majority vote for the annexation, a petition shall then be presented to the trustees of the independent school district for annexation, and, if such petition is granted by such trustees and approved by the county board of school trustees, such annexation shall be accomplished. It is further provided that, before the trustees of the independent school district shall have authority to grant the petition for annexation, such petition must be approved by a majority of the qualified voters of such independent district, at an election called for that purpose by the trustees.
Sections 2 and 3 of the act are as follows:
“Sec. 2. Whenever a majority of the legally qualified, taxpaying voters residing in a contiguous area of an independent district or common school district desire to have such territory detached from said independent district or common school district and annexed to some- other independent district or to a common school district or for the purpose of forming a-new district, they shall present a petition duly signed to the board' of trustees of the independent district or common school district praying for the detachment of the territory for one of the purposes mentioned herein. If the board of trustees find that the petition is duly signed by a majority of the legally qualified taxpaying voters residing in such territory, it may pass an order detaching such territory therefrom and declaring it annexed to some other district or for the purpose of forming a new district; provided, that the order of the board of trustees of the independent district or common school district must be approved by the county board of trustees and the annexation of the detached territory to any other district must be made by the county board of trustees and the creation of any new district from the detached territory must be made by said county board of trustees; provided that no new district shall be created with an area of less than 25 square miles; and no district shall be created or have its area increased except for the convenience of the school children or avoidance of-hazards to them.
“Sec. 3. Territory may be annexed to a common school- district upon petition of a majority of the legally qualified property taxpaying voters residing within the proposed annexation by the county board of school trustees; provided that whenever a majority of the legally qualified property taxpaying voters residing within any common school district shall vote so to do, the county board of trustees may abolish said common school district and annex the 'territory contained therein to one or more contiguous, school districts.
“The election herein provided for shall be ordered by the county judge and the returns canvassed and the results declared as is provided by law for other elections pertaining to common school districts.”
Since the injunction sought and granted in this case is one restraining the county school trustees from detaching territory from the Edna independent school 'district and annexing it to the Blair common school district, it is manifest that section 1 of the act cited has no -bearing upon the question.
By the plain unambiguous language of sections 2 and 3 of the act above quoted, the county school trustees are only authorized to detach territory from one school district and annex it to another when such proceeding is requested by a majority of the taxpaying qualified voters of the territory. The pleadings and agreed statement of facts upon which the trial court acted in granting and refusing to dissolve the temporary injunction disclose that the proposed and threatened order of the county school trustees, detaching a portion of the territory of the Edna independent school district and annexing it to the Blair common school district, which was enjoined by the trial court, was to be made on the request of a petition signed “by a! number of property taxpayers of the Blair common school district.” There is neither pleading nor evidence that a majority or any of the taxpaying qualified voters of the territory proposed to be detached and annexed had petitioned for such action.
In this state of the record it is clear that the cited act of the Legislature has no application to the case, and its validity, and effect upon'the authority of county school trustees to decrease the territory of school districts which have outstanding bonded indebtedness, are questions that are not involved in this appeal.
The remaining grounds of appellants’ motion for rehearing are but fó^nal repetitions of the propositions presented in their brief.
We think the motion should be overruled, and it is so ordered.
Overruled.