Awalt v. Beeville Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 28 December 1949
• Docket Number: No. 12027,12027
• Citation: 226 S.W.2d 913
• Parties: AWALT et al. v. BEEVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 913

226 S.W.2d 913

AWALT et al. v. BEEVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.

No. 12027.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Dec. 28, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1950.

Huson & Bissett, Refugio, Allen Wood, Corpus Christi, for appellants.

R. E. Schneider, Jr., George West, Reese D. Wade, Beeville, for appellees.

NORVELL, Justice.

By this suit A. L. Awalt and six others attacked the validity of an order entered in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2922a and 2922c, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., purporting to annex a number of common school districts to Beeville Independent School District. Appellants also made against the property lying within to authorize the levy of a maintenance tax and the assumption of certain bonded indebtedness was and is void and that no valid levy and assessment of taxes was made against the property lying within the district.

Trial was to the court without a jury and judgment rendered that appellants, the plaintiffs below, take nothing. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested, consequently we presume that all issues having support in the evidence were found in favor of appellees, Beeville Independent School District and the County Boards of School Trustees of Bee and Live Oak Counties.

Appellants contend that more than seven elementary school districts are involved and that the provisions of Articles 2922a and 2922c, as they existed prior to the 1947 amendment thereto, apply to the election here involved. Said Article 2922a provided, among other things, that the county school trustees should have authority to form rural high school districts by annexing one or more common school districts to an independent school district of two hundred and fifty or more scholastic population. Article 2922c provides that if the proposed rural high school district contains over one hundred square miles an election must be held. If seven or less districts be involved in the annexation proceedings, a majority vote throughout the entire proposed district is sufficient, but if more than seven districts are included in the proposed annexation it is necessary that the proposition carry by a majority of the votes cast in each of the several districts involved. The rural high school district under attack here contained an area greater than one hundred square miles. The annexation proposition carried in Beeville Independent School District (which was then an independent school district of over 250 scholastics), but was defeated in all of the common school districts sought to be annexed. Because of the large vote in the Beeville Independent School District and the comparatively light vote in the common school districts, the annexation proposition carried by a substantial majority of the votes cast throughout the area sought to be included within the proposed rural high school district.

One of the common school units included within the proposed rural high school district was the Cadiz County Line Common School District, which lies partly in Bee County and partly in Live Oak County. Appellants contend that this district must be considered as two districts. If so, there would be eight and not seven districts involved in the proposed formation of the rural high school district.

This Cadiz district was created in 1920, by action of the County Boards of School Trustees of both Bee and Live Oak County. It included all of Common School District No. 9 of Bee County, as it then existed, and a part of Lapora Common School District No. 7 of Live Oak County.

In issuing the order for an election upon the annexation proposition, the Live Oak County Board (August 4, 1947) fixed a voting place within Live Oak County for the Cadiz District, while the Bee County Board (August 5, 1947) fixed a voting place within Bee County for the Cadiz District. The election was held on August 30, 1947, and shortly thereafter (Live Oak County Board, Sept. 12, 1947, Bee County Board, Oct. 5, 1947) the County Boards canvassed the returns and declared that the annexation proposition had carried by a vote of 272 votes 'for' and 131 votes 'against.'

Assuming that the restructions of Article 2922c, relating to more than seven districts (as they existed prior to the 1947 amendment) are applicable to this annexation election, we are of the opinion that the Cadiz County Line District, although embracing territory in two counties, is properly considered as constituting one district only. In determining the number of districts involved in the annexation proceedings, we must consider the status of said districts at the time of the election and the proceedings had with reference thereto. The Cadiz District was not that type of district which is composed of several component parts having a status apart from that of the inclusive district. In constituted a single unit. The fact that two polling places, one in Bee County and one in Live Oak County, were designated within the Cadiz District does not alter the situation. It remained but one school district. Consequently, as only seven districts were affected by the proposed annexation, a favorable vote in each of the districts involved was required. A majority of the votes in the area covered by the seven districts considered as a unit was sufficient. We overrule appellants' first point.

On October 7, 1947, shortly after the County Boards and canvassed the returns of the annexation election and announced the results, the persons who comprised the Board of Trustees of the Beeville Independent School District before the six common school districts were annexed to it, purporting to act as trustees of the enlarged district, called an election for October 21, 1949, to determine whether or not the district should be authorized to levy a maintenance tax of $1.50 upon the $100 valuation of property, and also to determine whether or not certain bonded indebtedness of the old Beeville District should be assumed by the new district.

Appellants contend that the election was void for the reason that it was not called by a proper legal authority. It is asserted that a new board of trustees should have been chosen in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2774a, § 4, 2922a, and 2922e, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., and that the Board of the old Beeville Independent School District was not authorized to act.

Appellees counter with the contention that the district, as enlarged by annexation, constituted a successor independent school district to the Beeville Independent School District theretofore existing, and, consequently, the trustees of the predecessor district were authorized to call the election, as their successors had not been chosen, nor had they qualified. In the alternative, appellees assert that the persons who called the election were at least de facto trustees and their action must be accorded verity in this proceeding.

In our opinion, the enlarged district here involved was composed of seven elementary districts. Its trustees should have been elected from the district at large or appointed by the Bee County Board of School Trustees, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions relating to rural high school districts. (The orders of the Live Oak and Bee County Boards declaring the result of the annexation election provided that Bee County should have supervision of the District. Article 2922d.) ¹

We are, however, of the opinion that appellees' alternative contention should be sustained and that the acts of the persons calling the maintenance tax and bond assumption election must be recognized as valid in this proceeding. Said persons were at least de facto trustees. They purported to act for and on behalf of the enlarged district. Their claim of authority was at least colorable. The statute relating to the status of a district formed by annexing common school districts to an independent school district is complex in application and affords the basis for a good faith belief on the part of the trustees of the old Beeville Independent School District that they automatically became trustees of the new rural high school district bearing the same name. The Bee County Board of School Trustees acquiesced in the assumption of authority by this old Board of Trustees. The County Board did not call an election for the selection of trustees for the new district, nor did they appoint trustees to take charge of the affairs of the district pending such election. Apparently, no one questioned the authority of the board of trustees of the old independent school district to handle the affairs of the new district, employ teachers and operate the schools, presumedly in conjunction with the State Board of Education, from the date of the formation of the district, in August and September of 1947, until the present suit was filed on May 6, 1948. It further appears from the statement of facts that the transcript of the refunding bonds issued in accordance with election now questioned was submitted to the Attorney General in December of 1947, as required by Article 2670, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., and...