Oakwood I. S. Dist. v. Liberty Common S. Dist. No. 34

• Decision Date: 27 September 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 703.)
• Citation: 10 S.W.2d 174
• Parties: OAKWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al. v. LIBERTY COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 34.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

10 S.W.2d 174

OAKWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al. v. LIBERTY COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 34.

(No. 703.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

September 27, 1928.

Rehearing Denied November 1, 1928.

Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; W. J. Bryant, Special Judge.

Suit by the Liberty Common School District No. 34 against the Oakwood Independent School District and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

C. S. & J. E. Bradley, of Groesbeck, for appellants.

P. O. French and R. L. Williford, both of Fairfield, for appellee.

GALLAGHER, C. J.

This suit was instituted by appellee, Liberty Common School District No. 34, against appellants Oakwood Independent School District and J. O. Nichols, tax assessor, and W. F. Williamson, tax collector of Freestone county. The only relief sought by appellee was an injunction restraining appellants, respectively, from levying, assessing, or collecting any taxes on behalf of said Oakwood independent school district within the boundaries of a certain strip of land lying in Freestone county, which appellee alleged constituted a part of said common school district No. 34, and which it alleged was not embraced within the limits of said independent school district. There was a trial to the court. The evidence disclosed that the village of Oakwood, with certain surrounding territory situated in Leon county, together with certain territory situated in Freestone county, was incorporated for free school purposes only under the general laws of the state in the year 1900. The territory in Freestone county so embraced in said corporation is the identical territory in dispute in this case. The order of the county judge of Leon county declaring said village and said surrounding territory incorporated for school purposes further declared that said corporation should be known as "Oakwood School District." There is no contention that there was any illegality in the incorporation of said district, except the fact that it embraced lands lying in two different counties and constituted what is commonly known as a county line district. On May 15, 1909, after the Supreme Court of this state had held that there was no constitutional authority for the formation of such districts, said village of Oakwood, with that part of the territory of the former district lying wholly in Leon county, was incorporated for free school purposes only by a vote of the people, under the provisions of the general laws of the state. The order of the county judge declaring said territory incorporated for school purposes declared that said corporation should be known as "Oakwood Independent School District." A board of trustees for the newly created district was duly elected. Whether the members of the board of trustees of the old district were chosen as trustees of the new district does not appear. There is evidence, however, tending to show that at least one of the trustees of the former district was chosen as a trustee of the new district in such election. In June, 1909, at an election participated in only by the qualified taxpaying voters residing in the new district, bonds in the sum of $10,000 were voted for the purpose of building a schoolhouse. Said bonds were issued and dated July 10, 1909, which was shortly before the constitutional amendment validating county line districts.

After the adoption of said constitutional amendment, pupils of scholastic age residing in the disputed territory in Freestone county were regularly enumerated as a part of the scholastic population of said independent school district, and the per capita apportionment therefor paid to the same. At all elections for school trustees for said independent district thereafter held the qualified voters residing in said disputed territory participated, and from time to time one or more of the residents of said disputed territory were elected and served as such trustees. The children of scholastic age residing in said disputed territory attended said Oakwood school from the original incorporation in 1900 until the time of trial, and one of the schools maintained by said district was situated therein. In 1913, apparently under the advice of the Attorney General of the state, an election was held, in which the qualified taxpaying voters residing in the entire territory embraced in the original district created in 1900 participated, by which election the bonds so issued were declared validated and were declared to be valid obligations of the entire district as originally created and a tax was voted to pay the same. An additional tax was voted for the maintenance of the schools in said independent district. Said taxes were regularly levied and collected until the institution of this suit.

Liberty common school district was created by an order of the commissioners' court of Freestone county on September 6, 1906. According to its field notes, said district bordered on the north line of the Oakwood independent school district, but none of the territory of said independent district was included therein. No action by the school authorities of Freestone county with reference to said disputed strip until July 5, 1919, was shown. On that date the county board of education of said county increased the territory of Liberty common school district by adding thereto the territory in dispute. On July 12, 1920, said board of education ordered "the Liberty Common School District line re-established so as to conform with Oakwood Independent School District line as approved by Attorney General and the State Superintendent." Other than the testimony above referred to with reference to the approval by the Attorney General of the election of 1913, no other action by that officer was shown. After the filing of this suit the respective boards of education of Leon and Freestone counties held a joint meeting on August 27, 1927, and adopted a resolution declaring that the territory in dispute, which was a part of the Oakwood independent school district created in the year 1900, was not at that time a part of any school district in Freestone county, and that the same, if not already a part of said independent school district, should be added thereto. The parties on the trial of the case agreed that appellant Nichols was tax assessor and appellant Williamson was tax collector of Freestone county, and that they were, respectively, assessing and collecting school taxes for said independent district on property situated in the disputed territory, and that such action was authorized and directed by the trustees of said independent school district. There was neither admission nor proof that the levy of a school tax by or for Liberty common school district had been lawfully authorized nor that any such tax had been in fact levied or assessed against any of the property situated in said disputed territory.

The court entered a decree, perpetually enjoining appellants from assessing and collecting or attempting to assess or collect on behalf of or for the benefit of said Oakwood independent school district, school taxes upon and against any and all property, real or personal, lying within the boundaries of said disputed territory. Said decree is here presented for review.

Opinion.

Appellants by appropriate propositions contend that the court erred in enjoining them from levying, assessing, and collecting school taxes on the property situated in said disputed territory, claiming that appellant district as originally created, embracing territory in Leon county as well as the territory in dispute in Freestone county, was thereafter validated by the constitutional amendment hereinbefore referred to. Said amendment was declared adopted on September 24, 1909, and is in part as follows:

"Every school district heretofore formed, whether formed under the general law or by special act, and whether the territory embraced within its boundaries lies wholly within a single county or partly in two or more counties, is hereby declared to be, and from its formation to have been, a valid and lawful district." Constitution, art. 7, § 3a.

This amendment was construed and its effect declared by our Supreme Court in the case of Gillespie v. Lightfoot, 103 Tex. 359 et seq., 127 S. W. 799. That case involved the status, after the adoption of said amendment, of the Mart High School, an independent school district previously incorporated under general law. Said district included the town of Mart and surrounding territory lying in McLennan, Falls, and Limestone counties. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11, 111 S. W. 726, said independent school district ceased to function. The town of Mart, the nucleus of said independent district, assumed control of its schools, and became itself an independent school district, under the provisions of sections 134, 135, and 144 of chapter 124, General Laws 1905, p. 263 et seq. The territory in Falls and Limestone counties was distributed by the respective commissioners' courts to common school districts. The several districts thus brought into existence were fully...