OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY aENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
Honombla Paul T. Halt, Page &
approxiiuately$40 per acre, by the awnera who
aotually aade their rendition, but from tlm to
the, land has baconisless raluabls~on these
surveys and hare all been rsduoed to from #lo
to $30 per aore, and eo aooeptrd by the County
Board OS Xquallaatlon. Now, the owners an4 hold-
ers of these said z59O.S9aorao want to olaar the
taxes on the extra S4.89 awes. 0an the couuty
Commissioners court order the Tax Oolleotor to
oolleot on a smiler talus for eaah year whioh,
in their judgment, they would think to he tair
and just both to ths gtato and County and to the
Taxpayerf . . .
In the evant that the aourt aan not
graat i?ria;onablo raw, WhlOb in their jullg-
sent, they bellera to be fair te all oonOernb&,
then la event that the aatate haa more owners
than one, as t& oaso nrightbe, like this 0116,
would tlm Tax Collector be pwmltted to oolleot
in equal proportfon to eaoh heir or owner of the
part or Interest whfoh ha right own in the origlxml
grant an&~1st the other6 pay theira at a later
time+?
“The iaot that thin land we6 randem a8
miknowu Owner* for the80 years and not rendered
by ths owmr, xould that give the Arsaa6or and
Colleotor or Comulsslonera Court any right to re-
duoe the value, li they found tho value was too
high for aatd year$? tmti& the Court taks under
oonsi6eratlon the faot that Sor revere1 years the
Vnknom roll* waa hlghar thau the arlginal assees-
msnt, would they have the r ht to Qireet the Tax
Assessor an& Collsctor tb Qo
? loot on the Ilam
a ver a g peer loxu cm t&o *uuknowu Roll’ aa was ao-
oepted by the Board of mpaliastlon on the rsgular
aesssso,droll, if the land was the 6a5e Quality?*
We bava made a furtbsr investigation oi the igOt
in this OBSO, 4iIdWe find th4t th0 OWUBE Of this land zWI-
dered it each year lo quastlon by giving only the “abetreat
number”, the nane ot the %rigloal grantee", the waOrss
75:
Eonorablc Faul T. Holt, Page 3
rendered* and the "value* of the land. The *abstraot nun-
berv was nutuber84, and that number applies to the entire
Santiago Del Valle Survey of 44,eBO aore8. During the
first iew year8 or the period involved th18 owner rendered
the tract as 545 aores, but during the later year8 of this
period rhc rendered It as S31 sorer, the d~oreaee being due
to the raot that about 14 aorc8 had been sold to other
ptirtlea.
We al80 68ocrtaIneC that the Tax Asrca8or-Col-
lector of TravIa County kept an abstraat book In aocordanoe
with Articles 7195 and 7190 Of the Revised CIvIl Statutea,
and that it contained a reoord or the Santiago Del valle
survey and ahowed that It oontalned tan laague8, that 18,
44,f230 aores. We found that eeoh year he oaloulated the to-
tal number of aorta rendered by rarlous owners In this 8ur-
vey, and rubtreated this total from the number of aOre In
the survey, to-wit, 44,SSO acres, and thereby dctewlned the
number of aorae of the survey that was not oa the tax roll8
In the name or the known ownexc. ThIc nu&ber of aorta was
plaoed on the roll as one Itcn of unrendered and uukuown
property, the owner being designated a8 %nknown owner-, the
property not being desorIbed or desiguated ln any maaner ex-
oept that it was In the Santiago Del valle Survey. The Tat
Asseseor-Collaotor advI8cs u8 that thI8 exoc88 oonsI8ted or
approzinately ROOO aorta, and that the 54.59 nor88 In que8-
tion Is a part or this unrcndercd 6x0~88. ~,~
At the outset we are oonironteil with the question
or whether or not the owner aan be oon8idcred as rendering
-the whole tract of 399.99 nom8 or only a fradtlon or 8aId
tract, to-wit, S4!5/399.S0of said tract.
.
We bcllere that only a fraction of said traot was
rendered. Itodescription we8 given whereby the apcoltlc
traot oould be oonsidered as haring been rendered. The ouly
thing rendered Was 345 aores, and that particular 345 acre8
is not iaentiried. The taxpayer In the 0880 oannot OoxplaIn
of a raultg or lnsufrieient deeoriptlon beoause she furniehed
it and oannot be xlsled by It. Dorman v. gtate, (Tax. Clv.
App.) 85 s. Y?. (Ed) m52; Cooper Survey Company v. CItq or Waoo,
(Tex. Clv. App.) 71 S, 'A.619; and McRIokle v. RoOhelle, (Tex.
Civ. App.) ll?@ 9. W. 94.
We believe that Article 710g of the Revised Civil
Statutes was Intended to apply in a oaac of this kind. That
article reads as r0llow8:
Zoner-ble Paul '1.fiolt,Page 4
*.Xactassaseor, when he shall hare nmde the
asses&xent oi his couuty for eaah yeeer,shall, on
the first day of June of each year, or as soon
theretatteras practicable, oarry rroa each person*8
aaseesk.entthe nuubar of aore and its value on
each survey of lands, lots or blocks to that par-
ticular survey, tot or blook touud on the ab8trclOt
books provided in hrticler,7196, 7197, and 7806
and all the parts or each surrey or block place d
on said abstraot books shall be a oredlt to the
assessor on that pareloular survey. Said asaeasor
shall deduct the total nlllaber of aams rendered
oh eaoh survey or blook from the total number of
acres OS the whole eurve~ or block as 1s showu by
eaid abstrmt; and, if any part is left uhrendered,
then he shall asseas the la&e to the owner or
OWWTB thereof, It known, aad, if unknown, then
to *unknown owner8,* and the value thereor shall.
be afilsed by him, sanotioued by the board of e~uaLi-
zatioa; provided, that the mater or ovmers of any
survey and grant of laud may shou that the survey
and grant ti whlah they are interested does not
coctaia the full oomplement OS aOre shoring how
mny acres are in raat mbraoed wit& the oalls
of the partloular sway and grant.-
We have not found any mperted crassoonstru%ng
tbie statute with referenoe to the question at hand. & try-
ing to arrive et its meaning we uhauld bear in mlub t&t Ar-
tlols 7mb takea @are or the ordinary 8ituatlon where the
ownershIp et a pieor of land is iurknopm. Direotion there is
for th6 e#mbsaQr to list the ownerehlp of the property a8 %n-
kww5* in asseaoing It tar taxe8. When it Is borne in ilnd
that Artisle 7108 was not tnteaded a8 a repetition of Article
7206, but was meant to cover a different situation, lta mean-
ing becomes olsar. The abstraot book in the oifioe ol'ths
asseiuborshowing a survey to oontaln a giron number oi amets,
the burden is upon B&B to se8 that suah survey Is filled lu
with rendition# corarih,:that number ot Bores In the survey.
It suoh reudttiQIt8do not oover the ul.Lnumber of aOrQs thw
shown in the abstraot book to be Ins the awep, there rasiains
a balanoe to be assewed by the aweasor. And, awnerrro?
piews of a swey would be bouud to take notlee OS all thl8.
The iaot that the renditions do not lnoludo a oufiloleEt num-
ber of aerea to iill.out the surrey aoaordfng to tbnr abetraot
book would put any such owner on notioe that he may have all
Honorable f*sulT. Holt, Page 5
or a part of the excess, and that if he does have it 16
eubjeot to the additional asseaement whloh the awewor Is
required to make. The above Article 7198 negatives the
idea that the recdltloa of the tract In question, glrlug
the quantity as 345 cores, must be taken to cover the whole
interest in tha tract, whloh It Ls now ahom oontalns 599.59
acrea.
We uow pass to the queatlon as to whether the
assessmnt of the balanoe of the survey eaoh year to the
%ukuown owner" wes valid, or whether the undivided 54.39
acrea in question atands in the poaitlon of never hating
been essesred.
We olted ease8 above holding that when the tax-
payer furnishes the description In the mmdltlon and aasea8-
that he oanuot oomplain on the ground that the demerlp-
llient
tlon la faulty or lnauftlolent; but a8 far a6 thir ex0e88
of 54.39 aarea In thl8 traot is ooneered we believe that
the rule stated in the oass of Boase f. Stone, (Tex. Sup.
Ct.) 64 %x. 677, epplles. Sn that aase the land in quee-
tlon had been ameased by the State against au Wakuown
owner," and the oourt held the assersnumt InvalId beoauw
the list end aaoesament raiLed to identify the land in ques-
tioc, and the oourt said:
"'. . . 7ha lot6 of land mast be deflnlte-
ly and dlatlnotly deoeribed, and par01 proof can-
not supply tba detiofenoy In tha descriptloltor
bouudariee. These muat be aaoertalned froa,what
la written. The question la not ohe of Intention,
but one of feat--what did the assessors do? WhIoh
ia the spetiia lot on which the tax is laid?
Theee queat1on.amust be anarered from;the reaord.**
The aswssment in thla a,a8ewould be egalust 54.N
aore& 15 said traot of 399.89. Said 54.39 acres aaunot be
ldentliled except es being an umlirlded part of aald S99.39
acre tract; but we belleve that Artlele 7198 authorizes auoh
au asseesaent 3x1a ease like t&Is.
The prmedure for such reawemment would be uhder
krtlcles 7348 and 7547 of the Revised ~1~11 Statutee. Artlole
7946 reads aa iollowm:
554.
Honorable Paul.T. Halt, Pa@ 6
"Whenever any CodSSiXWrs cant shall
discover through nctice Iron;the tax colleator
or otherwise that any real property has been
omitted frm the tax rolls for any year or
years since lEFX, or shall find that acg previous
asaesamente on any reel property for the years
mentioned are invalid, or have been declared
Invalid for any reason by any district oourt
In a suit to enforce the aolleatlon or taxes
on said properties, they may, at any meeting or
the Court, order a list or such propertier to
be made In triplioate and fix a compansatlon
therefor; the said list to show a o+mplete
description or such properties and for what
years auoh properties were omitted tram the tax
rolls, or for what years the aseesmieota are
round to be invalid and ehould be oancellsd and
re-aaseeaed, or to have been declared Invalid
and thereby camellea by any district court in
a rult to snroroe the oolleotIon or taxes. Ro
reasseaannt of any property ehall be held
against any Innooent purahaaar of the aam if
the tax records of any ooumty fall to ahow any
assessment (for any year 80 re-assessed) by which
said, property oan be ldentlrled and that the
taxes ara mpald. The above exoeption, with the
same limitation, 8hall 818s apply as to all past
+~~;t;rWd18trlot uourta aanoeling,Invalid
.
Artlole 9549 reads. in part as r0u0wr:
*When said list ha% been so rpedeup the eom-
mlfclalonere
court may, . . . refer 8uch lfat or
properties to be assessed or rsaraseesed to the tax
as8e68or who 8hall prOO%sd at Onoe to nrake an
aaaessment of all mid pZOpartI%s, . . . and when
aompleted shall submit the 8-e to the oomaiasloners
court, who shall pass upon the valuatIona tired by
hImi 6nd, when approved 861to the value8, 8hall
cause the taxes to be computed and extended at
the tax rate in eflett for each separate year men-
tioned In said list; and, In addition thereto,
shall cause to be added a penalty equal la amount
to what would be six per oent interest to the date
rald~llat rrom the d&te such groperties
or ffieiklng
would have been delinquent had same been properly
redered by the owner thereof at the time and for
the years stated in said list; . . .*
7s
Rouorable Paul T. Bolt, Pase 7
In view or the roregoing discussion, we believe
that it Ie urmeoeeeary to answer the other questiona in
your Inquiry.
Our anetwr can be sufmasrlzedas followsI 0&p
345 acres of’the land in question was rendered by the owner.
Under Artiole 91Qi3the Aaeersor-aollector has authority to
assetxzi
in the rmrieof an *uakaowa ownera any exoees In a
survey; and upon dleocvsry that this particular landowner
owned part ot this excess such excess owned by her oan be
assessed against her under the prooedure presorlbetlIn Ar-
t101os 9346 and 9349. Suoh aasessaent ehimld be or an on-
divi6eQ 54.39 acre6 In said 399.39 aore tract.
Youra very truly
FIRS? ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
CCR:%w