OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYOENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
flonoroble Luther C. Johnston
County Mitornsy
Andrrron County
?alartins, Texasi
m0uia oltatioh b
.' tax ruits be publlrhed
B. L. Vol. 10, p.
ra o? mi~lur&8
miitn,a 6d.b
eta ter th6 taxer
er a? fears, ar8
he name OS the
lot@ bs unkmwm
850 quote from Artlele ?JCdb, Vernot)'e Annotated
OirS.1 3tatutes (Aots 28211, 46th Leg., p. 1494-a. @I. IBQQ),,
ae ?0ll0ws:
694
Honorable Luther 0. Johnston, Page 2
aSec. 3. The laws gorernlng ordinary fore-
closure suits In the District Courts of this State
shall oontrol the auaetion of parties, lssuanae,
and service of procw~s and other prooeedlngr in
t&x mlit(l, aare and exoept as herein otherwise
provided. The following apeolal prorlslonr shall
apply to and govern the question of parties and
lrsuanee and servioe of prooere in tax wits:
(I
. . .
*(a) Where any defendant in such ault 11
a nonresident of the Stat+, where the name8 of
the owner or ounem OS said property are unknown
to the attorney filing the suit for the plelntltt
taxlug unit, where the residence o? any defrndant
18 unkuoun to suoh attorney, and where the auto
oi the defendant heir8 OS any deoeared perron are
unknown to ruoh attorney, and ruch faotr are ro-
oited in the petltlon, eenioe of notioe br pub-
Uoatlon lr hereby luthorlred In eaoh and all o?
such oases, . . .- tloer rhnll be oubllrh
An rose newwamr DU#?& ln the county in uhlo!?
the Dronerty la loo d one t le rt
121 oon#eeutI e we2 the ii% ~&%on Fz
be not leas &n Sour&eon (14) dam Drlor to the
on aua
“Sco. 13. The prorirlonr OS thlr Aot rhall
be ausulatlre o? and In addition to all other
rlnhte and remedies to A&oh M tulnn unit mat
Reytmed Cltll Btatuter of 1926 rhall govern .tr
brbught under thlr hot exorpt as herein provided.*
(Underscoring ours).
Ronorabla Luther C. Sohnrton, Page S
In the oaso of State et al. v. Bagbj’s Estate et
al., 120 S.W. (2d) SW, the following language 1s foundr
*The provlelons of Chapter 10, Title 122 (tax-
ation OS R.C.S. where applloable will oontrol the
prooedure questions in tax foreolosure suits here
presented. 40 T. J. p. 241; Young v. Jackson, bO
Tax. Clv. App. 351, 110 S.W. 74, writ refused; Rour-
ret v. Settegart, Tex. Cit. App., 210 S.W. 219; Art-
lole 7542, R.C.9, o? 1925, under this Title provides
that ‘whenever l l l the uama o? the owner or owners
OS said l * * late be unknown, the@, upon affldavlt
of the attorney for the State aettlng out that the
l l l owners are unknown to the attorney for the
State and after inquiry oannot be asoertalned; raid
part2er shall be olted and made partier defendant
by notloe * l *.I This artlole then prescriber the
fora of euoh notloe and~prOtldea for publloatloa
onoe each week Sor thre
It la olear from the luthorltler elted ebova that
the provision@ of Artlole 734Sb, lupra, ~111 prevail over the
provisions of~Artlole 7842, supra , should they be in ooniliot.
IOU are therefore advtred that remloe o? notlae by publloa-
tlon shall be suffloient if 8-e be publirhrd ior two (2) eon-
saoutive weeks in oompllanoe with,Seotlon 3(d) of Artlole ?%5b,
supra, when said Artlele la applLoable.
Any langunge oontained in our Opinton No. O-2927
that 1s oontraxy to what we have uld in this opinion 1s here-
by expressly overruled.
Yours very truly
Br fk%
ATTORNEY GEK%AL