Page 205
127 S.W.2d 205
DONIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al. 
v. 
FREESTONE CONSOLIDATED COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 13, et al.
No. 2153.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.
April 6, 1939.
        Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; H. F. Kirby, Judge.
        Suit by Freestone Consolidated Common School District No. 13 and others against Donie 
Independent School District and others to enjoin named defendant from operating its busses for the 
transportation of pupils within the limits of the plaintiff district. From an order of the trial court granting a 
temporary injunction, defendants appeal.
        Reversed and injunction dissolved.
        L. W. Shepperd, of Groesbeck, for appellants.
        Geppert, Geppert & Victery, of Teague, for appellees.
        PER CURIAM.
        This suit was instituted by Freestone Consolidated Common School District No. 13 and its trustees, 
hereinafter called appellees or appellee district, against Donie Independent School District, its trustees and 
its school superintendent, hereinafter called appellants or appellant district, to enjoin appellant district 
from operating its busses for the transportation of pupils within the limits of appellee district. Appellees 
alleged, in substance, that pupils of scholastic age residing in appellee district had theretofore been 
transferred to appellant district; that appellants were operating their busses in appellee district and 
transporting such transferred pupils from their respective homes to the Donie School and returning them 
to their said homes; that the county school trustees had never routed said busses into or through appellee 
district; that the purpose of appellants in so transporting such pupils as aforesaid was to induce transfers 
from appellee district to appellant district, and thereby deprive appellees of the sum per capita 
apportioned to each pupil so transferred, and that appellants' action in so operating their said busses was 
arbitrary and without authority of law. Appellees further alleged that as the result of such action by 
appellants, they had already suffered damage in the sum of $600, and if permitted to continue, they 
would suffer further damage in the sum of $5000. Appellees' petition, duly verified, was presented to the 
judge of the court in chambers and the temporary injunction as prayed for was granted.
        Provision is made by statute for the transfer of any child lawfully enrolled in one district to the 
enrollment of another district or independent district upon written application for such transfer by the 
parent, filed with the county superintendent. Such application must contain an affirmative statement that 
it is the bona fide intention of the applicant to send such child to the school to which the transfer is asked. 
All such transfers are required to be made by the county superintendent on or prior to August 1st of each 
year. Any district or independent district dissatisfied with any transfer so made may appeal from such 
action to the county board of trustees, who have authority to cancel or annul the same. R.S. Art. 2696, 
Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Art. 2696.
Page 206
        Provision is made for the transportation of pupils to and from any school upon which they may be in 
attendance. In some instances, such authority is conferred directly upon the school district. R.S. Arts. 
2813 and 2687a, Vernon's Ann. Civ.St. Arts. 2813, 2687a. Authority is also conferred upon the county 
school board to set up a system of transportation for the purpose of concentrating high school pupils. In 
that connection, it is further provided that districts through which such county operated busses may run 
may make provision with the county superintendent and county trustees to have any other pupils not 
otherwise provided for transported within and between their respective districts. Gen.Laws 45th Leg., 
Reg.Session, Chap. 474, Sec. 11. We do not consider it necessary to elaborate upon the provisions 
contained in the several articles above cited. We think the issue involved herein is clearly shown to be one 
arising in the administration of the school affairs of said county. The general management and control of 
such affairs is vested in the county school trustees of each county. R.S., Art. 2676, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. 
art. 2676. Necessarily, under the general language used in said article, the county school trustees of each 
county are vested with a large discretion in the exercise of the powers so conferred, and the courts will 
not ordinarily interfere with their exercise of the same unless it is clearly shown that such discretion has 
been abused. Barnhart v. County Board of School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S. W.2d 770, 772, par. 5; 
37 Tex.Jur., p. 895, sec. 37. Appellees' allegations that the county school trustees had not authorized 
appellants to operate their busses over the route of which they complain does not show that the authority 
and control given to such trustees by the article last cited had ever been invoked. It has been held that a 
petition, to be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in matters of detail pertaining to the general 
management of schools, must allege that application has been made to the proper school authorities and 
a ruling had thereon, and that in the absence of such allegation, the petition is subject to general 
demurrer. Barnhart v. County Board of School Trustees, supra; State ex rel. Nevills v. Sanderson, 
Tex.Civ.App., 88 S. W.2d 1069, 1070, par. 2, and authorities there cited; Trustees of Crosby Independent 
School Dist. v. West Disinfecting Co., Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 661, 663, par. 3, and authorities there 
cited.
        The order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction herein is, under the 
authorities above cited, reversed and said injunction dissolved.