West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District v. County Board of School Trustees of Orange County, ORANGE-COVE

• Decision Date: 24 May 1968
• Docket Number: ORANGE-COVE,No. 7008,7008
• Citation: 430 S.W.2d 65
• Parties: WESTCONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF ORANGE COUNTY, Texas, et al., Appellees. . Beaumont
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 65

430 S.W.2d 65

WEST ORANGE-COVE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF ORANGE COUNTY, Texas, et al., Appellees.

No. 7008.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Beaumont.

May 24, 1968.

Keith, Mehaffey & Weber, Beaumont, for appellants.

Stephenson, Thompson & Morris, Orange, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action brought by the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District attacking the order of the Orange County Board of School Trustees, annexing the Orange Common School District $1 to the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District. Trial was by jury, but at the close of all of the testimony, the jury was discharged and the court rendered judgment upholding the validity of the order under attack. The parties will be referred to herein as 'West Orange,' 'Orange County Board,' and 'Orange Common School District,'

The undisputed evidence shows the following occurred. (1) June 26, 1967, the voters of Orange Independent School District voted to abolish the district. (2) July 3, 1967, the Commissioners Court declared the Orange Independent School District abolished. (3) July 14, 1967, the Orange County Board created a common school district out of the former Orange Independent School District. (4) October 17, 1967, the Orange County Board entered an order annexing the Orange Common School District to West Orange.

West Orange's first point of error is that the procedure outlined in Article 2806 Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. is the only way whereby independent school districts may be consolidated. This article provides, in substance, for an election to consolidate common school districts, independent school districts, and common school districts with independent school districts. For consolidation to be effected, a majority in each district must vote in favor of such consolidation.

It is admitted by Orange Common School District that the statement contained in West Orange's first point of error may be correct, and the procedure outlined in Article 2806 V.A.C.S. may be the only way two independent school districts can be Consolidated, but it is not the exclusive way for them to be Combined. It is contended that the legislature has provided two methods for Combining school districts, Consolidation by an election under Article 2806 V.A.C.S. and Annexation by order of a County Board under Article 2922a V.A.C.S. Article 2922a V.A.C.S. provides in part '* * * the county school trustees may annex one or more common school districts * * * to an independent school district having one hundred fifty (150) or more scholastic population.'

It must be kept in mind in considering this point of error, that the election whereby the Orange Independent School District was abolished, was not contested, and the order of the Orange County Board creating the Orange Common School District out of the former Orange Independent School District was not contested. The only order under attack in this appeal is that of the Orange County Board annexing the Orange Common School District to West Orange. It also must be kept in mind that the portion of Article 2922a V.A.C.S. above quoted, places no limitation as to the size of a common school district which may be annexed to an independent school district, and that it is admitted West Orange has a scholastic population in excess of the 150 required for the independent school district by such statute. There is nothing in this statute which indicates the common school district must be smaller than the independent school district to which it is annexed.

Article 7, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St., provides:

* * * and the Legislature may also provide for the formation of school district by general laws.

In Prosper Independent Sch. Dist. v. County Sch. Trustees, 58 S.W.2d 5, on page 6, the opinion by Commission of Appeals, Section A, 1933, states:

The validity of the act is assailed on various grounds. One of those grounds has reference to the omission to provide for notice to and hearing of the trustees of the district from which territory is proposed to be detached. The contention in this respect is to the effect that the absence of such a provision renders the act invalid under the due process clause of the Constitution (article 1, § 19). This contention necessarily presupposes that a school district, in its corporate capacity, has a vested right in respect of the territorial boundaries of the district as originally established. For, if there be no such vested right in the corporation, with respect to the territorial extent of the district, the due process clause, of course, would have no application. That no such vested right exists is hardly debatable; for a school district is, at last, but a subdivision of the state for governmental purposes. The transfer of jurisdiction, which is involved in a transfer of a part of the territory of one district to another district, is clearly within the power of the Legislature. The state Constitution specifically authorizes the Legislature to 'provide for the formation of school districts by general or special law.' Article 7, § 3. With this provision present in the Constitution, the contention under consideration can find no solid ground upon which to rest. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful that the contention could be maintained if the above provision did not appear in the Constitution. There can be no doubt, however, that, except where some right having its foundation in the Constitution will be impaired by the change, The Legislature, by virtue of the above constitutional provision, Has authority to change, at will, the territorial boundaries of any school district, and to provide the mode and agencies by which such change shall be affected. (Emphasis ours) (and cases cited).

The Legislature did provide a mode and agency by which such change shall be effected by Article 2922a V.A.C.S., Authority to Establish, 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 (400) scholastic population and independent school districts having less than two hundred fifty (250) scholastic population, for the purpose of establishing and operating rural high schools; provided, also, that the county school trustees may annex one or more common school districts or rural high school districts, or one or more independent school districts having less than two hundred fifty (250) scholastic population to a common school district having four hundred (400) or more scholastic population, or to an independent district having one hundred fifty (150) or more scholastic population.

The emergency clause contained in the acts of 1947, 50th Legislature, p. 798, ch. 398, § 5, is as follows:

The fact that many schools adjoining large common school districts and independent school districts are unable to group under the present high school grouping law; the further fact that such failure to be able to group prevents equal educational opportunities to all the pupils in various localities; and the further fact of unequal and insufficient financial support of many pupils of Texas under the present system, creates an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended, and the same is hereby suspended, and this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.

In construing Article 2922a, the court must ascertain the Legislative intent by looking to the entire act, including caption, body and emergency clause. City of Irving vs. Dallas County Flood Control Dist., 377 S.W.2d 215, reversed 383 S.W.2d 571; Martin v. Sheppard, 129 Tex. 110, 102 S.W.2d 1036; Anderson v. Penix, 138 Tex. 596, 161 S.W.2d 455; Trawalter v. Schaefer, 142 Tex. 521, 179 S.W.2d 765.

A reading of the emergency clause of Article 2922a V.A.C.S. Acts 1947, indicates the Legislature intended to authorize annexation based upon unequal financial advantage of the two respective school districts.

The combining of school districts by annexation under Article 2922a V.A.C.S. has been approved by the courts in this state. The Eastland Court of Civil Appeals handed down its opinion March 8, 1963 in Neill v. Cook, Tex.Civ.App., 365 S.W.2d 824. The trustees of two common school districts brought suit against the county school board attacking the validity of annexations made under Article 2922a V.A.C.S. The opinion of the court reads, in part, as follows:

Article 2806 V.A.T.C.S., concerning elections to consolidate, has no application to annexations under Article 2922a and the procedure provided by Article 2806 is not required to be followed in an annexation under Article 2922a. Contrary to appellants' contention an annexation and a consolidation are not the same thing although the end result may be in each case to combine the districts. A consolidation involves the power delegated by the Legislature to voters of school districts. An annexation under Article 2922a involves the power granted to county school trustees to annex school districts to other school districts. We overrule appellants' contention that the annexation was void because the procedure required in connection with Article 2806 was not followed. Trinity Independent School District v. District Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 1021, (Writ Ref.), Board of District Trustees of Lanier Common School District No. 49, Cass County v . Board of County School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 100, (Ref. N.R.E.), Mt. View Common School District v. Blanco County Board of School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 224. (Emphasis ours.)

There is no provision in Article 2922a, as amended in 1947, requiring...