THE ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
HonorableDenver
County Attorney
Conz~les county
GonzEiloe , T6xa5
Dear Sir1
1040, YOU SdViS.8
u5 .that when ct GollnQuent taxes
before suit is r ffiakee 00 charge
at8 of exmption,
$ho follo?iing
under suoh oir-
or such certlfloate of
has been filed and the
at a tax 8a1e1*z
331, Revised Civil Staiutes, reads in
oulating and preparing reaenption
and rocelpts, re?ortlng and orcdlt-
ons, pooting Cozmtrollor~s reatq-
. tion m&em on the deliur,uent tax record or an-
nual dolinouofit list, nailing certlfioates of re-
aeqtion to taxpapero after approvul by the Comg-
troller, and for iosulnlr, reoelpts or cartlficatoo
of rcdezptlon for property show on the annual
delln~ueut list, the tax collector shall be en-
.‘.G78
EIonorable .Deove; E. Perkins, Page 2
titled to a fee of one dollar ($1.00) for eaoh
oorrcot assosa.-,ent OS lana to be sold, said fee
to bo taxed OS costs uCainst the delinquent. 5
Correct asseseaent 8s herein used Deans the 1s;
ventory of all. propertl’es owned by au individual
ror my One year. Provided, that in no ~335 shall
the state or oounty be Iloble for said fee.”
It r&l bo noticed t,hat the $1.00 fee 15 intf3Ga8a
to be a compensation for the several services mentioned in .
the first sentenoe of tho statute. It 1s Got merely a foe
ror lsaulng a. redemption oertlfioate,
For instanoe, thore is iooludad the service of
wissuinC -.-
reoolnts or certificates OS redonptlon for oroperty
ahown on the enuual dclimucot list.” Artiole 7m-i?evlsed
m Statutes, provides that *any dalinauent tosoarer whoso
Lands have been i?eturuea delinquetit or reported sold to the
State for taxes due thereon, or any one havicg an interest
therein, my redees the sa3e nt any tlne before hln bIGa are
sold under the provisions of t!lis oheater, by paying the taxes
due thereon since famnry 1, 1885, wi%h int&~~t at the rate
of six percent per anriw nGa all oosts and the penalty of ten
peroent +”
It ‘1s quite apparent that the term “before his lands
ara sold” is used in Article 7339 nlt!lout rsferenoe to the
question ol’ vihethor suit has been fllod. There is no require-
ront in Article 7331, or elne%horo, that the filing of suit
should be prc- requisite to the mturity Of the fee in ques-
tion. In via:: of this, and of the further fact that many
of the services for vM.oh the fee la to furnish oozpensatlon
are not dependent up% the filing of suit, we are of the -opin-
ion that tho use ‘of tho riords *to bo sold” in the clause *the
tax collector shall be entitled to a foe of $1.00 -for ‘each
correct asccssneA of land to be sold” was not intended to
mean that the fen should be due only ln those cases whom suit
has been filed. i’le acoordi.cCly ausvier your question in the
af flr;iatlvc.
This COGStFUOtiOG is in acOo;& with that placed on
the statute by the CoEptrolIer’s OfSico and the opinion of
form3 Assistant Attorney Goneral homer 0. De?:olfo, aatea
.
679
honorableDenverE. Perkins,Page 3
November26, 1935, reCOrdeC in Vol. 541, page 219, Attor-
ney Censral~sLetter OpinionReport6,
Yours very tru.l&
.I
ATTORNEY GXERAL OF !FEXAS
Glenn R. Levfls
AssIstant
GF&:BBB