Bowen v. Board of School Trustees
| Decision Date | 04 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3698.) |
| Citation | 16 S.W.2d 424 |
| Parties | BOWEN et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF PANOLA COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Panola County; R. T. Brown, Judge.
Suit by J. W. Bowen and others against the County Board of School Trustees of Panola County and others. From an order refusing a temporary injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
B. W. Baker and P. P. Long, both of Carthage, for appellants.
R. W. Priest, of Carthage, and Futch & Cooper and Chas. L. Brachfield, all of Henderson, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order refusing to grant a temporary writ of injunction restraining school trustees from issuing bonds. The applicants for the writ, appellants here, reside and own property situated in the Beckville independent school district and several contiguous common school districts in Panola county. On September 10, 1928, the county board of school trustees of Panola county passed an order for an election in the Beckville independent school district and five contiguous common school districts, for the purpose of enabling the qualified voters to vote upon the following proposition: "Shall the Board of County School Trustees of Panola County, Texas, be authorized to form a Rural High School District, to be known as the Beckville High School District No. 3, Panola County, Texas, by grouping the Beckville Independent School District with the Harris Chappel Common School District No. 4, Rock Hill Common School District No. 18, Scruggs Common School District No. 19, Sims Common School District No. 28, Broome Common School District No. 29, and the Waldrop Common School District No. 30?"
Notice posted by the secretary of the board reads as follows: "Shall the Board of County School Trustees be authorized by popular vote to form an enlarged Independent School District, to be known as the Beckville Independent High School District, Panola County, Texas, by annexing (then follow the names of the above mentioned common school districts) to the Beckville Independent District?"
The election was held, and a majority of the votes cast were in favor of creating the high school district. After canvassing the returns and declaring the result of the election, the county board of trustees passed the necessary orders for completing the organization of the district. The district trustees then appointed entered upon the duties of their office, and thereafter, in response to a petition, ordered an election to enable the qualified voters of the new district to determine whether or not bonds in the sum of $45,000 should be issued for the support and maintenance of the district schools. The election was held, and resulted in favor of the bond issue. After declaring the result of that election, the district trustees prepared and submitted to the Attorney General a transcript of the proceedings required by law for the issuance of the bonds authorized. The transcript was approved by the Attorney General, and bids for the purchase of the bonds were received and accepted by the district trustees. But before the bonds were issued and delivered, the appellants applied for this writ of injunction. The application for the injunction was presented in vacation to Hon. R. T. Brown, judge of the district court of Panola county, who, after a hearing of the parties, refused to grant the writ.
The principal ground alleged in the application for the injunction is that the rural high school district had not been legally created, and that the individuals appointed by the county board as district trustees had no legal authority to act as such. The validity of the organization of the district and the authority of the district trustees are attacked upon the ground that the election ordered by the county board of trustees to determine whether or not the high school district should be created was void because of the variance between the order originally adopted by the county board and the notice of the election that was posted by the secretary. Article 2922A of the Revised Civil Statutes, as amended by the Acts of the Fortieth Legislature, 1st Called Sess., p. 206, which authorizes the creation of rural high school districts, is as follows: "In each organized county in this state and in any county which shall hereafter be organized, the county school trustees shall have the authority to form one or more rural high school districts, by grouping contiguous common school districts having less than four hundred scholastic population and independent school districts having less than two hundred and fifty scholastic population for the purpose of establishing and operating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yoakum County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 2 v. First State Bank, 358
...Dist. No. 1 v. Guinn, Tex.Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 892, wr. ref.; Kuhn v. City of Yoakum, Tex.Com.App., 6 S.W.2d 91; Bowen v. Board of School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 424 (no wr.). * * The statute provides for the method of attack upon the order and thus affords due process. The questio......
-
Pyote Independent School Dist. v. Estes, 5747
...may not be questioned in a collateral proceeding, but should properly be tested in a quo warranto proceeding. Bowen v. Board of School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 424. Appellees point out in their brief that appellant had plenty of opportunity to file a statutory election contest, but......
-
Lynn County School Bd. v. Garlynn C. Co. L. Sch. Dist.
...of the rule that a valid and legally existing school district cannot be collaterally attacked. Bowen et al. v. Board of School Trustees of Panola County et al., Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 424; Ivey et al. v. Keeling et al., Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 1097; Lewis et al. v. Simmonds et al., Tex.Civ......
-
Toyah Independent School Dist. v. Pecos-Barstow Consol. Independent School Dist.
...may not be questioned in a collateral proceeding, but should properly be tested in a quo warranto proceeding. Bowen v. Board of School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 424.' And see Crain v. Adams, 120 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1938, n.w.h.), for other authorities and the statemen......