The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing
For the first time on motion for rehearing, appellants take the position that quo warranto is the exclusive method of raising the questions involved in this proceeding. Passing the issue of whether this may be so raised first on rehearing, we do not believe the position is sound.
The general rule is that a collateral attack may not be made in challenging corporate existence, formation or alteration of school districts where there is a colorable compliance with legal requirements, Mesquite Independent School District v. Gross, 123 Tex. 49 , 67 S.W.2d 242 ; or where the attack is based on some mere irregularity or defect in the proceedings. In such cases, quo warranto in which the state is a party is the exclusive remedy. Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11 , 111 S.W. 726 ; Crabb v. Celeste Independent School Dist., 105 Tex. 194 , 146 S.W. 528 , 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 601; Rice Consol. Common School Dist. v. City of Tyler, 219 S.W.2d 558 , writ ref. n. r. e.; Mathis Independent School Dist. v. Odem I. S. D., Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 270 ; Lefler v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 231 . See City of Wichita Falls v. Bowen, 143 Tex. 45 , 182 S.W.2d 695 , 154 A.L.R. 1434 ; King’s Estate v. School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App. 33 S.W.2d 783 , writ ref.
The rule is entirely different, however, where the proceedings are without authority of law or there is failure to take essential steps. In such cases the board has no potential jurisdiction, its actions are void and in-junctive relief is available.
Here, the potential jurisdiction is expressly limited under the law to cases in which the required concurrence exists. In such cases, since the attempted action without concurrence is void, injunction is the proper remedy. Mesquite Independent School Dist. v. Gross, 123 Tex. 49 , 67 S.W.2d 242, 246 ; Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11 , 111 S.W. 726, 729 ; Town of Sunnyvale v. Dallas County Board, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W.2d 296 ; 37-B Tex.Jur. Sec. 48, p. 197. The motion for rehearing is overruled.