OFFICE OF THE Al7ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eon. A. E. Slokerson
county Auditor
Conroa, Toma
Dear Girt OPlnlon HO. 0
Se reoeiosd your letter or
whioh you request our opinion on the
*When a taxpayer set
by a oompromire jlaa
by the dish-lot ju4
mre to settle tllir
rnitfgthe 18snan00
of the writ ai the district anb
oounty courts. 8 rtatute relating to
the tim OS the e on tax ju4&meBtr,
suoh orders of enwa1 atitrtter in
this reapeot. 1 statuteror Texam,
rsmdr em r0im
0r 8 diatrl0t 0s 00anty
11 tax the oosts In every
ent Ia 8 been rendered,
roe ouoh jud@sent and
1, Retimed Oitll Statutea~ rettdm
expiration of twenty daya frcm and
ltion of a final jub$ment in the d%r-
nty oourt, a nd ltter the overrulingof
any motion therein for a nau trial or in arrest of
jtbipimt, if no eupetreUea6 bond on appeal or writ
of error has bea filed and ap,protr&, the 010x% r-1
issue exeoution upon atah judgimentupon sppll~tlo~
of the ruaaeaeiul#rty.*
Eon. A. E. :XIokereon,
Page 2.
A olose reading of these statutee reveals that e&u-
tlon'my Issue after the adjournment of the court or after
the expirationof twenty days froaand after the remlltlon
0r a final judgment. The tiw within which the executionmy
Issue is.regulsteaby the @ate of the're;#;Io; drnye judg-
ltentand not by the data of Its entry. . . .
The 4wt.yto Issue an ereaution intposadon the olerk
after the adjounmeat of the oourt doea not arise until appli-
oetlon b made fqr the srlt by the uaner cf the judgment.
The owner of the judgment,, i.e., the plaintiff or hle trana-
feree. has exoluaire ooutrol urer Its 0oUeotion an4 Ia tha
only person entitled to 0011 for the writ. Arthur vs- Driver,
127 6.W. 891; 18 T. J. 559.
Having pointed out above the earlledt tlm rlthln
vhioh the order of sale miy lame, wu would further obeene
that at any time thereaftertha oounby attorney may oauso the
order of sale to 'Issueunless the jtatlgmmt ia paid.
Youre wiry truly
Or TEXAS
ATTQRURY QlQJ7jRAL