Hale v. McMurrey

• Decision Date: 01 November 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 1873.)
• Citation: 22 S.W.2d 499
• Parties: HALE et al. v. McMURREY, County Judge, et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

22 S.W.2d 499

HALE et al. v. McMURREY, County Judge, et al.

(No. 1873.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

November 1, 1929.

Rehearing Denied November 13, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, San Augustine County; J. L. Manry, Judge.

Suit by W. B. Hale and others, alleged to be acting trustees of the Camilla Independent School District of San Jacinto County, against William McMurrey, County Judge, and ex officio Superintendent of Public Free Schools of San Jacinto County, and others. From an order dismissing suit, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Gates & Cox, of Huntsville, for appellants.

Wm. McMurrey, of Cold Springs, for appellees.

HIGHTOWER, C. J.

This is a controversy over school matters in San Jacinto county. The appellants here initiated the controversy by presenting to Hon. J. M. Manry, judge of the Ninth judicial district, on December 20, 1928, their petition for a temporary injunction, and Judge Manry made an order setting the matter down for hearing on January 19, 1929, but it was not heard at that time, but was postponed until March 18, 1929, on which date Judge Manry dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction in his court to entertain it.

There is no question of pleading, as such, presented by this record, and therefore a brief statement of the nature of the controversy will suffice. Appellants alleged in their petition for injunction that they were the duly qualified and acting trustees of Camilla independent school district of San Jacinto county, and named as defendants Hon. William McMurrey, county judge and ex officio superintendent of public free schools of San Jacinto county, and the county board of school trustees of San Jacinto county and certain other persons who, the petition alleged, were claiming the authority to act as trustees of the Cold Springs rural high school district No. 1 of San Jacinto county and the Cold Springs State Bank.

As grounds for the writ of injunction sought by them, they alleged substantially the following: That on November 2, 1928, a purported election was held in the Camilla independent school district and the Cold Springs independent school district and three other common school districts in San Jacinto county for the purpose of determining whether the Camilla independent school district and the three common school districts should be annexed to the Cold Springs independent school district for high school purposes, with a view to forming and establishing what should be known and called the Cold Springs rural high school District No. 1 of San Jacinto county, and that the election so held resulted in favor of the annexation, but that the vote in the Camilla independent school district was against the annexation by a large majority. Appellants further alleged that they, as trustees and citizens of the Camilla independent school district, did not consent to the holding of the election for the purpose of determining whether the aforesaid annexation should take place, and that they were opposed to the contemplated annexation, stating in minute detail their reasons for such opposition, and stating the facts upon which they claimed that such annexation would be detrimental to the Camilla independent school district, and also stating facts which they alleged rendered the election null and void.

Appellants then alleged that on November 10, 1928, the county board of school trustees of San Jacinto county made an order declaring in effect the establishment and creation of the Cold Springs rural high school district, and that seven persons, naming them, were claiming to be the duly elected and qualified trustees of the Cold Springs rural high school district, and claiming the authority and power to control and supervise all the schools and school affairs in such rural high school district. The petition stated several grounds which appellants claim rendered the formation of the rural high school district unlawful, but, since most of these grounds of attack have been waived by appellants in this court, we shall confine our further statement of this case and disposition of it to the grounds now relied upon by appellants for reversal of the order of dismissal which was entered by Judge Manry.

Appellants alleged in substance that at the time the election was held on November 2, 1928, for the purpose of determining whether the annexation of the several districts hereinabove named should take place, the Cold Springs independent school district (the nuclear district) had less than 250 scholastic population, and that therefore the county board of school trustees of San Jacinto county had no lawful authority, and were without lawful power, to create and establish the Cold Springs rural high school district by annexing to the Cold Springs independent school district the Camilla independent school district and the three common school districts named in the petition, and that the order of the county board of school trustees of San Jacinto county, made on November 10, 1928, declaring and establishing the Cold Springs rural high school district, was null and void and of no legal effect whatever, and that the defendants who were claiming the authority to act as lawful trustees of the Cold Springs rural school district had no lawful authority to so act, and had no authority to in any manner interfere with the school affairs and management and supervision of the schools in the Camilla independent school district or to in any manner interfere with appellants in their capacity as trustees of the Camilla independent school district in supervising, managing, conducting, and controlling the school affairs of that district.

Appellants alleged substantially that, at the time of the purported annexation of the several districts, as stated above, the Camilla independent school district had on hand as available school funds, composed of state and...