THEATI-~RNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable W. W. Kilgore Opinion No. ~~-583 

County Attorney 

Victoria County Re: Authority of Victoria 

Victoria, Texas County Tax AssessorCollector to collect 

fees from County-wide 

Navigation District 

Dear Mr. Kilgore: Taxes. 

Your request for an opinion from this office concerns 

the following statute. 

Section 5 of Article 1042b of Vernon's Civil Statutes 

reads as follows: 

"Sec. 5. When the County Assessor and County 

Collector are required to assess and collect the 

taxes in any Incorporated city, town or village, 

drainage district, water aontrol and improvement 

district, water Improvement district, or navigation 

district, they shall respectively receive for such 

services an amount to be agreed upon by the governing body of such incorporated cities, towns or 

villages, drainage districts, water control and 

improvement districts, water improvement districts, 

or navigation districts, and the Commissioners 

Court of the county in which such incorporated 

cities, towns or villages, drainage districts, 

water control and improvement districts, water lmprovement districts, or navigation districts are 

situated not to exceed one per cent of the taxes 

so collected. Acts 1939, 46th Legislature, p. 

$5:;,,Acts 1941, 47th Legislature, p. 404, ch. 235, 

. 

Your question is "should the County Tax Assessor and 

Collector receive one per cent for assessing and one per cent 

for collecting and/or one per cent of the taxes collected." 

Prior to November 8, 1932, Section 14 of Article VIII 

of the Texas Constitution provided for separate assessing and 

collecting offices In County Qovernment with each having had a 
Honorable W. W. Kllgore, page 2. (w-583) 

separate fee schedule. Since that date said office of Tax 

Assessor and Tax Collector have been combined by the amendment 

of Section 14 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, your question is whether the Tax Assessor-Collector of 

Victoria County as one office can collect a fee of "one 

cent for assessing and one per cent for collecting, and per or one 

per cent of the taxes collected" from the County-wide Navigation 

District. 

In reading the language of Section 5 of Article 1042b, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, it states that: 

"When the County Assessor and County Collector 

are required to assess and collect the taxes in any 

. . . navigation district, they shall respectively 

receive for such services an amount to be agreed 

upon by the governing body of such . . . navigation 

districts, and the Commissioners Court of the county 

In which such . . . navigation districts are situated 

not to exceed one per cent of the taxes so collected." 

(Emphasis added.) 

Article 7359 of Vernon's Civil Statutes states, In part, 

as follows: 

"Any incorporated city, town or village in this 

state is hereby authorized by ordinance to authorize 

the County Tax Assessor and County Tax Collector of 

the County in which said city, town or village is 

situated, to act as Tax Assessor and Tax Collector 

res ectivel for said city, town or village. 

-11 respectively receive for such s&ices 

one per cent of the taxes so collected." (Emphasis 

added.) 

In both statutes the word "respectively" is used. Webster's New International Dictionary, second edition, defines the 

word "respectively" as follows: 

'Respectively . . . as relating to each, in 

particular; each to each; each in the order given." 

It therefore follows that when the statute uses the 

phrase "they shall respectively receive for such services," it 

Imports that a dual service is performed for which a dual fee 

is entitled to be credited. The mere fact that the former law 

and constitutional provision provided for dual office holders, 
Honorable W. W. Kllgore, page 3. (w-583) 

one performing the duty of County Tax Assessor and another 

performing the duty of County Tax Collector, for which each 

was entitled to his separate fees of office, does not now 

lessen those duties nor the actual services rendered since 

the two offices are combined into the one office of AssessorCollector. 

The navigation district is still receiving the same 

amount of services under the present law as it received when 

the offices were separately held. Therefore, since the law 

provided for a separate fee prior to the combining of these 

two offices, those same fees are still required to be paid as 

this property In the district is still being assessed for taxes 

and the taxes are still being collected. 

Section 5 of Article 1042b does, however, state that 

such fee to be paid to either shall not exceed one per cent of 

the taxes collected. 

By Acts 1939, 46th Legislature, p. 652, Article 1042b 

of Vernon's Civil Statutes was amended in part, but that provision established the maximum fee to be paid the County Assessor 

and the fee to be paid the County Tax Collector remained the same 

notwithstanding said offices were combined into one office by 

the amendment of Section 14, Article VIII of the Texas Constltutlon on November 8, 1932. Article 1042b was again amended in 

part to its present form by Acts 1941, 47th Legislature, p. 404, 

ch. 23.5, par. 1.~ The amount of the fees collected for the 

assessing and the collecting of these taxes were never changed 

or amended. 

It Is, therefore, our opinion, that the Tax AssessorCollector may assess a fee of no more than one per cent of the 

taxes collected for assessing, and a fee of no more than one 

per cent of the taxes collected for collecting the taxes for the 

county-wide navigation district. 

SUMMARY 

The Victoria County Tax AssessorCollector may charge's fee not to 

exceed one per cent of the taxes 

collected for the assessing of the 

taxes for the county-wide navigation 

district and a fee not to exceed 
. . 

Honorable W. W. Kilgore, page 4. (W-583 1 

one per cent of the taxes 

lected for the collecting 

taxes for the county-wide 

colof the 

naVlgation district as is provided for 

in Section 5, Article 1042b of 

Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

LFP:me 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

J. Arthur Sandlin 

Wallace Finfrock 

Riley Eugene Fletcher 

Robert Lewis 

REVIEWED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert