Henderson v. Miller
Decision Date | 15 May 1926 |
Docket Number | (No. 11668.) |
Citation | 286 S.W. 501 |
Parties | HENDERSON et al. v. MILLER et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; H. S. Holman, Special Judge.
Suit by E. H. Henderson and others as trustees of Johns Branch Common School District No. 88 and others against J. B. Miller and others, as Trustees of the Valley View Independent School District and the members of the County Board of Trustees. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
W. O. Davis and Adams & Jones, all of Gainesville, for appellants.
Garnett & Garnett and Murphy & Murphy, all of Gainesville, for appellees.
Dan Moody, Atty. Gen., Weaver Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., amicus curiæ.
Acting under and by virtue of the authority of the provisions of chapter 59, p. 204, of the Acts of the Thirty-Ninth Legislature of 1925 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. 1925, arts. 2922a-2922l), the board of county school trustees of Cooke county, on June 20, 1925, in regular session, passed the following resolution:
Before the passage of that resolution the board of trustees of the Valley View independent school district had, on June 17, 1925, passed a resolution requesting the county board of school trustees to consolidate the three school districts mentioned by annexing Johns Branch common school district No. 88 and Lone Oak common school district No. 40 to the Valley View independent school district.
On September 21, 1925, E. H. Henderson, T. R. McCrary, and W. E. Johns, as trustees of Johns Branch common school district No. 88, and Q. G. Calhoun, Luther McCollum, and Lon Dyer, as trustees for the Lone Oak common school district No. 40, instituted this suit in the district court of Cooke county against the trustees of the Valley View independent school district and the members of the county board of school trustees for a writ of injunction restraining each and all of the defendants from enforcing and putting into effect the aforesaid resolution of the county board of school trustees annexing the two common school districts to the independent school district, and also restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the maintenance of the schools in the two common school districts mentioned.
The grounds upon which the injunction was sought were allegations in plaintiffs' verified petition to the following effect: That the Valley View independent school district, organized as an independent school district on June 9, 1892, was incorporated as such under the general laws for school purposes only as a town of exceeding 200 inhabitants, and now has and has had for many years a scholastic population exceeding 150. That the Johns Branch common school district and the Lone Oak common school district were also organized as common school districts many years ago. All three districts mentioned have ever since their organizations been managed and controlled by duly elected boards of trustees, who have maintained schools in their respective districts in a manner satisfactory to all concerned. In each of the two common school districts a teacher has been employed by the trustees and arrangements made for the maintenance of schools for the current scholastic year. Notwithstanding that fact, the trustees of the Valley View independent school district are proceeding to take charge of the two common school districts and dismiss the teachers so employed and to abolish the schools heretofore maintained therein, and will accomplish that end unless restrained from so doing by an order of court. The scholastic population in each of the common school districts now exceeds and for many years has exceeded 20 pupils of scholastic age, and the daily attendance at each of said school exceeds 20, but if such daily attendance is less than 20, the same was due to sickness or other temporary causes. In each of said common school districts good and efficient schools have been maintained for seven months in each year, and there is no desire upon the part of the residents of said common school districts to be annexed to the Valley View independent school district, nor was any one in either of said common school districts consulted in reference to the proposed consolidation or annexation. That the Valley View independent school district, prior to said attempted consolidation, contained an area exceeding 13,000 acres, and the proposed consolidation would increase its area more than 25 square miles, which would be in excess of the maximum area of 25 square miles fixed by statutes for independent school districts. That the children of scholastic age in the two common school districts are remote from the schoolhouse in the Valley View district, and the distance is too great for them to walk to that school, thus rendering it inconvenient, if not impossible, for them to attend school in the independent district. That the act of the Legislature, under which the board of county school trustees, known as House Bill No. 38, is unconstitutional and void, first, because the provisions under which these proceedings were taken are not expressed in the title of the act; second, because it confers upon an independent school district, to which common schools have been attached, the power to impose upon such common school districts the indebtedness theretofore contracted by the independent district; and, third, because it attempts to interfere with an existing independent district not by general or special law, but seeks to delegate to the board of county school trustees the power to do so without the consent or concurrence of the territory proposed to be annexed.
On September 30, 1925, the board of county school trustees passed another resolution, which reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.
...the private rights of individuals. Dupree v. State, 102 Tex. 455, 119 S.W. 301, par. 11. As said by the Court in Henderson v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 501, 506 (writ refused), "It is manifest that neither the board of county school trustees, nor the state superintendent, nor the state......
-
State ex rel. Childress v. School Trustees of Shelby County
...142 S.W.2d 697, writ refused; Terrell v. Clifton Independent School Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 808, writ refused; Henderson v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 501, writ refused; Board of Dist. Trustees of Lanier Common School Dist. No. 49, Cass County v. Board of County School Trustees of......
-
Flax v. Potts
...determine constitutional question." In connection with the rule just stated, the Bruce case quotes the following from Henderson v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 501, 506, writ "It is manifest that neither the board of county school trustees, nor the state superintendent, nor the state boar......
-
Tilton v. Dayton Independent School Dist.
...280 S. W. 260 (writ refused); Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District (Tex. Civ. App.) 285 S. W. 345, 350; Henderson v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 286 S. W. 501 (writ refused); Hill v. Smithville Independent School District (Tex. Com. App.) 251 S. W. We do not understand appellants to ......