Molyneaux v. Amarillo Independent School Dist.

*189 On Rehearing. .The appellants complain in their motion for rehearing that we erred in holding that the Legislature, by the general law quoted in the opinion of this court, could enact a law making the land of appellants liable for the payment of pre-existing bonded indebtedness of the school district without making the law effective only upon the contingency of an election being held to determine whether the citizens and inhabitants and electors of the added territory, or of the whole district, would assume such liability. We did not so hold in the original opinion rendered in this cause, but, after discussing this question, we announced that we found some conflict in the authorities in this state upon this issue, but that it was unnecessary for us to reconcile them in order to render what we believe to be a proper judgment in this cause. The appellants in this case are attempting to resist the payment of taxes on their land because they say the legislative act incorporating their land in the school district is unconstitutional. .Since the filing of the motion for rehearing herein, we have given the subject-matter of this suit further study, and feel convinced that our holding in the original opinion to the effect that the validity of attempted annexation of contiguous territory to an independent school district cannot be collaterally attacked at the suit of a private citizen defending against the payment of taxes is correct. The state can make such inquiry and attack the validity of a quasi municipal corporation by proper proceedings instituted by it or under its authority, and we do not believe that the appellants are entitled to assail the incorporation of the Amarillo independent school district in so far as the annexed territory is concerned in the indirect manner attempted in, this suit. Harris v. City of Port Arthur (Tex. Civ. App.) 267 S. W. 349; Graham v. City of Greenville, 67 Tex. 62, 2 S. W. 742; Parker v. Harris County (Tex. Civ. App.) 148 S. W. 351. The motion for rehearing is overruled. PIRES, Special Associate Justice, concurs. MARTIN, Special Chief Justice, not sitting.