Common School Dist. No. 16 v. Keeling
| Decision Date | 30 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4007.) |
| Parties | COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 16, LAMPASAS COUNTY, v. KEELING, Atty. Gen. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
J. Tom Higgins, of Lampasas, for appellant.
W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. F. Gibson and Riley Strickland, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The Evant Independent School District of Coryell county, was incorporated in 1892. A petition to extend the boundaries of the district in compliance with Revised Statutes, art. 2865, so as to include a part of the territory in common school district No. 16 of Lampasas county, was presented and acted on by the school board of the Evant district on July 2, 1921, and was filed for record in Coryell and Hamilton counties on July 5th and 7th of the same year. The limits of the Evant district when so increased did not exceed 25 square miles. The copy of the resolution, recorded as aforesaid, contained a description of the added territory.
On July 9, 1921, a petition was presented to the Evant board of trustees for an election for the issuance of bonds in the sum of $10,000, and an order was passed to that effect on the same day. The bonds were voted, approved, and have been sold. The bonds were dated August 10, 1921, payable serially $1,000 every fourth year for 40 years, bearing 6 per cent. interest, payable annually, and constitute the only debt against that school district.
On June 8, 1921, the commissioners' court of Lampasas county ordered an election in common school district No. 16, to be held July 9, 1921, to determine whether said district should issue bonds in the amount of $2,000. The bond election carried by a majority vote, but at a time subsequent to the aforesaid annexation of a part of the territory of common school district No. 16 to the Evant independent school district. The bonds voted by the common school district were not approved by the Attorney General, for the reason that the district had been diminished after the election was ordered and before it was held, the petition being for an election in common school district No. 16 as it existed prior to the annexation of a part of its territory to the Evant district.
The above is taken from the agreed statement of facts. It will be observed that after the commissioners' court of Lampasas county had ordered an election for common school district No. 16 the boundaries of that district were diminished by the inclusion of a portion thereof in the extension of the boundaries of the Evant district, made in compliance with Revised Statutes, art. 2865. This article reads:
"Whenever the territory heretofore incorporated, or which may hereafter be incorporated, for free school purposes, shall contain less than twenty-five square miles, and thereafter the majority of the inhabitants, qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, of any territory adjoining the limits of the town or village so incorporated, shall desire such territory to be added to and become a part of such incorporated town or village for free school purposes only, and a majority of such qualified voters sign a petition to that effect, any three of such qualified voters may file with the board of trustees of such incorporated town or village the said petition, making affidavit of the facts set forth in said petition, fully describing by metes and bounds the territory proposed to be annexed and showing its location with reference to the existing territory of the town or village already incorporated; provided, that said territory proposed to be added must be contiguous to one line of said corporation, and upon filing of said petition, affidavits and descriptions, with the president of the board of trustees, it shall be his duty to submit the same to the board, and, if upon investigation by the board it is found that the proposed addition will not increase the corporate limits so that the whole, when so increased, will exceed twenty-five square miles, then the said board of trustees, by resolution duly entered upon its minutes, may receive such proposed territory as an addition to, and become a part of, the corporate limits of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobra Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sadler
...v. Sheppard, 122 Tex. 445, 60 S.W.2d 1031 (1933); Holcomb v. Robinson, 118 Tex. 395, 15 S.W.2d 1027 (1929); Common School District v. Keeling, 113 Tex. 523, 261 S.W. 364 (1924); Kemp v. Wilkinson, 113 Tex. 491, 259 S.W. 912 (1924); Trinity Life & Annuity Soc. v. Love, 102 Tex. 277, 115 S.W.......
-
Amarillo Civil Service Commission v. Vitatoe
...v. Sheppard, 122 Tex. 445, 60 S.W.2d 1031 (1933); Holcomb v. Robison, 118 Tex. 395, 15 S.W.2d 1027 (1929); Common School District v. Keeling, 113 Tex. 523, 261 S.W. 364 (1924); Kemp v. Wilkinson, 113 Tex. 491, 259 S.W. 912 (1924); Trinity Life & Annuity Soc. v. Love, 102 Tex. 277, 115 S.W. ......
-
Tilton v. Dayton Independent School Dist.
...1915B, 1146; Martin v. Grandview Independent School District (Tex. Civ. App.) 266 S. W. 607 (writ refused); Common School District No. 16 v. Keeling, 113 Tex. 523, 261 S. W. 364; Molyneaux v. Amarillo Independent School District (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S. W. 185 (writ refused); Turbeville v. G......
-
City of Galveston v. Mann
...interest of third persons is involved. These principles were well announced in the case of Common School District No. 16, Lampasas County v. Keeling, Attorney General, 113 Tex. 523, 261 S.W. 364, 365. In that case the School District filed with the Supreme Court a petition for mandamus to r......